Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel - Wikipedia

Article Images

WP:DISRAEL

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:

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.
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.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AppShield the product does not appear to independently establish notability beyond Sanctum, the company that created it. As a testament to that the version of the article prior to my edits describes three different products or research projects entitled AppShield, all erroneously presented as a single topic. Brandon (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Israel. Brandon (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Merge (changed per discussion below) - Although it seems very likely that WP:COI editors are meddling with this and related articles, I think this passes notability. Doing a little more digging I found a couple more decent-quality sources, including a ZDNet article attesting to adoption in 2002. IMO this is a good example of how COI editors can actually make it less likely that their subjects get articles, when left alone they don't raise as many eyebrows. StereoFolic (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for improving the article! At this point I agree the content belongs somewhere, However it does still feel like AppShield and AppScan could be presented as sections within the Sanctum (company) article. Especially considering the company and the products were acquired together by Watchfire a combined article would be able to present a intertwined narrative without having three stubs that are unlikely to ever be fleshed out on their own. Brandon (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense to me. I've changed my !vote to merge. StereoFolic (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sanctum (company) as an unjustified SPINOFF. This opinion takes into account all the arguments above and the situation of both articles. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gidonb.Andre🚐 23:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure this yeshivah is notable. Unfortunately the Hebrew article isn’t much help in terms of providing additional sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Judaism, and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real sources on this article demonstrating notability, and only one source I could find online. Fails WP:NCORP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and California. Skynxnex (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incredibly minor product offering from an otherwise notable company. Lack of sustained coverage reflects that. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All coverage is WP:ROUTINE and the article is largely WP:PROMO. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Israel, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incredibly minor product offering from an otherwise notable company. Lack of sustained coverage reflects that. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been six months since this was last discussed and I don't find any new sourcing, beyond what was discussed at the last AfD. This appears to have been a SYNTH from various bits of news coverage... While you can find mentions of a "hit list" of sorts that the Israeli army has, it doesn't appear to ~~be a playing card deck~~ be coverage of a playing card deck. I've not seen coverage of this concept this past year, so nothing has changed, notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SYNTH does not apply. The GNG and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE do apply. The GNG has been established and hence the article was kept in the past. See this Makor Rishon source from July 2024 as proof for CONTINUED INTEREST. gidonb (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better source, do you have more? Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also negative recent attention around an error in the card deck. Article from May 2024 in Yediot Ahronot. 04:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete Replaying my !vote from the last discussion, it was a crap article then and it's still a crap article now, no-one is interested in this rubbish. Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator claims these are not physical playing cards. They are very physical. See for example here to see many pictures. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the statement, it's the lack of sources... Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the statement above with the nomination, there is visual evidence, stored on Wikipedia Commons, and included in the article itself, of this being a real playing card deck. Moreover, as the individuals originally identified in the deck of cards continue to have changes to the status column of the article, the lasting effect and import of the cards continues to grow (WP:EFFECT). Coining (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I mean there doesn't appear to be coverage of the cards. I know they exist, we've seen photos of them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the nomination; due to a lack of sources, not the fact that the exist, that we're debating here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We won't know of lasting impact until maybe years from now.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a CRYSTALBALL, doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, Why is that CRYSTALBALL? VR says that we should consider lasting effect in the future. That's policy, not crystal ball! Importance of a subject is always relevant. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting effects in the future means we don't know how important it is now. We aren't here to predict the future [[1]]. We need reliable sources that discuss these cards in detail, which we don't seem to have. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When these cards came out in 2023, these received a lot of media attention, satisfying the GNG. In 2024, which isn't nearly over, the deck received again much attention.[2][3] VR says that we would need to check this also in the future. That has nothing to do with crystal balling. It's just how WP rolls. gidonb (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really sure what VR has to do with the sources, what do you think about them Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have shared my opinion elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coining. Andre🚐 23:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH: No source evidence that a series of engagements in the vicinity actually constitute a battle as such and the term is not a Wikipedia artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. There is this article in Countercurrents.org. These articles[4][5] also give a higher level overview of the topic. Might need to do more research.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is very little in searches about a "Battle at Tel al-Hawa"; in theory we could create many other "battles" around this conflict. We should stick to the ones that are noted in quality military sources; many such contrived battles in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are being rationalised (we get historic cases re-imaged as "battles" like Battle of Nicosia Airport). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seen sufficient proof that there was a distinct battle at Tel al-Hawa. Warfare for sure. The concern with this article is practical, not theoretical. I'm very open to legitimate SPINOFFs for battles. gidonb (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip: possibly with a very selective merge. This comes across as a SYNTH aggregation of several events during the war, some separated by half a year, grouped together solely by geography. "Battle at <x>" brings to mind a single, continuous military conflict at that spot, not a collection of skirmishes separated by months of nothing there. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]