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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Israel.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Middle East.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Israel

Ami Dror

AfDs for this article:
Ami Dror (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. -- Omer Toledano ( talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep-- היידן ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Sofiblum ( talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg ( talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg ( talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.
  • Ref 1 [1] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 2 [2] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
  • Ref 4 [3] This is another interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 5 [4] This a business. Its comes under WP:NCORP. Its WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Its not independent.
  • Ref 6 [5] This is from a press-release. Its comes under WP:NCORP. It fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 7 [6] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
  • Ref 8 [7] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
  • Ref 9 [8] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
  • Ref 10 [9] Another press-release Non-RS.
  • Ref 11 [10] An interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 12 [11] Business interview. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS
  • Ref 13 [12] Another interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 14 404
  • Ref 15 [13] A radio interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:
Kindly retract your deletion request. -- Omer Toledano ( talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for posting these @ Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.
  • Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. As its a business article, it comes under WP:NCORP, and specifically fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. It is PR with Dror answering questions. It is not independent. Its a paid for promotional advert.
  • Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking. It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS
  • Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. -- Omer Toledano ( talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
  • Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks for posting these @ Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.
  • Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. As its a business article, it comes under WP:NCORP, and specifically fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. It is PR with Dror answering questions. It is not independent. Its a paid for promotional advert.
  • Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking. It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS
  • Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
  • Ref 17 [17] Another interview. Its not independent.
  • Ref 18 [18] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
  • Ref 19 Non-rs
  • Ref 20 Non-rs
  • Ref 21 Unable to view it
  • Ref 22 [19] Its a passing mention.
  • Ref 23 Non-rs
  • Ref 24 [20] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
  • Ref 25 [21] Link to one of his companies. Fails WP:NCORP
  • Ref 26 Non-rs
  • Ref 27 [22] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
  • Ref 28 [23] Doesn't mention him.
  • Ref 29 [24] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
  • Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
  • Ref 31 [25] A small profile. Not significant.
  • Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 34 Non-rs
  • Ref 35 [26] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 36 [27] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg ( talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply


Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tal Slutzker

AfDs for this article:
Tal Slutzker (  | 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 significant, numerous, third-party sources can be found to support notability in general or as an artist; just a couple of interviews and one advertorial: A young artist like myriads of others. No judgement whatsoever on artistic value, this. But Wikipedia is not a complete directory of artists nor a random collection of information. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Gharqad

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

Hello Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.

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

I am against deletion, here is why

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

About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear fellow contributor,
Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.
Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:
  • Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.
  • As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?
  • In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.
  • The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist ( Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.
  • As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.
  • Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.
  • Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.
Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.
I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.
Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.
"Warm regards,
Sajid ( talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes "appears in the hadith" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 ( talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hello, @ Oaktree b ,
    Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:
    • Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
    • Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
    • No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research
    Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.
    Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.
    Regards,
    Sajid ( talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams ( talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb ( talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hello @ Gidonb. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid ( talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb ( talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams ( talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b ( talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ T/ C] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 ( talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The "hadith of the Gharqad tree" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos ( talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Since no valid rationale for deletion was brought forward and no one ever thought that this should be deleted, I believe this is eligible for quick closure. I have expressed my opinion so will refrain from closing but would appreciate it if the next person could close. There are already so many other open AfDs! gidonb ( talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Significant concept. ---Lilach5 ( לילך5) discuss 04:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

". . . if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism, in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

via Hamas Charter of 1988, Article 7, emphasis mine.-- FeralOink ( talk) 13:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:SNOW. No clear rationale for deletion. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources, which are not difficult to find. Aintabli ( talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Zivit Inbar

Zivit Inbar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Three Phase Operation

Three Phase Operation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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


Deletion review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Images

Redirects

Requested Moves

Miscellaneous

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel&oldid=1220976029"