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]

Israel Mazin

[edit]
Israel Mazin (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)

Abysmally sourced BLP created (and since maintained) by a series of WP:SPAs over the years. I found this interview with a short bio blurb as well as other business-related articles like 1 and 2, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. There might be coverage out there, specifically more stuff in Hebrew. JTtheOG (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet standards for WP:BLP. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Arad, Israel

[edit]
Tel Arad, Israel (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)

Per WP:NPLACE, a settlement is only presumed notable if it is both populated and legally recognised. Tel Arad is, as the lead says, not legally recognised by the polity whose territory it is inside of (Israel), and so needs to meet WP:GNG, which it does not. I would have CSD A7'd this on that grounds, but the statement that it is nearby to and named after an archaeological site lends it a credible claim of significance, I think. My RFCBEFORE turns up results only for the much more notable archaeological site, not for the village, and since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED that doesn't substantiate GNG for this article. Athanelar (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Athanelar (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be an extreme technicality to delete a minority settlement on the grounds that it wasn't officially recognised, considering there is at least one paper which claims there was intervention to ensure it wasn't recognised: [1] It clearly shows as a hamlet on Openstreetmap. There's also lots of Google Scholar hits, though there appears to be two problems: the first is that the village shares a name with a major archaeological site on the other side of the road, and the fact that most of the sources specifically on the Bedouins aren't accessible though. An easy web search brings up lots of potential sources, however: [2] [3] and the mention that it exists here: [4] [5] - and that is just the start... I think this passes the spirit of WP:NPLACE (which is under discussion, and directly attacks my argument that "legally recognised" is still suitable) and if not is at least notable under WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer On your 'potential sources;'
    1. The only mention of Tel Arad in this is a WP:PASSING mention in the image caption
    2. This one's a bit better, but it still doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV of Tel Arad as it's focused on a womens' cycling group in the town.
    3. I can't read this one due to the paywall
    4. Again no SIGCOV here
    So no, I don't think GNG is substantiated, and you can argue that it's a 'technicality' but the current text of NPLACE is pretty clear; places are presumed notable if they are populated and legally recognised, and says Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Whether or not there was intervention to ensure it wasn't recognised, the fact remains that it isn't; and so if there's no GNG (which there doesn't seem to be, if those four are the best sources you were able to turn up, and I wasn't able to turn up anything better) then NPLACE isn't satisfied and the article unfortunately needs to be removed; although, we could potentially merge and redirect the content to Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel as ATD, as the passing coverage in those sources does at least provide something to substantiate a subsection there. Athanelar (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't the only sources, though, and not being able to access sources doesn't disqualify an article. Furthermore the point of NPLACE is to allow us to have articles on standalone places where people live. "Legally recognised" is meant to weed out places which aren't clearly settlements, mostly in a North American context. GNG aside, I'd argue that in this circumstance, deleting an article on a clearly verified settlement which was specifically denied legal recognition by the government, possibly for political reasons, is still well within the spirit of NPLACE. SportingFlyer T·C 10:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A guideline which says that the Israeli government has the right to decide which articles we have on Wikipedia is one that triggers WP:IAR. Leaving that aside, the single existing source is not enough but there are plenty of other sources. At Talk:Tel Arad, Israel I put a preliminary list which includes treatment in both academic and journalist sources. Some have a passing mention that provides a citable fact, while others have extensive coverage. Together, they satisfy GNG by a wide margin. Zerotalk 05:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nearing 3000 residents (2200 in 2017,[6] 2500 in 2021)[7] is a large village or a small town. As SportingFlyer points out, there is no lack of coverage. Tel Arad has its own school by the same name.[8][9][10] With bus stops (both side of the road) named after the school. Geographically, it is quite unique in the the following all coming together at one place: Nahal Be'er Sheva starts here, the Israel National Trail runs through it, as does the Med-Dead hydrological boundary. By the way, the 2021 article in Zman Yisrael is WP:SIGCOV by any standard. gidonb (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Department

[edit]
Information Security Department (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)

Unsourced since 2006. A department inside a government service isn't inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG/WP:ORG. Even if sources are found this might be better covered in Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel) per WP:NOPAGE. I note too that "information security department" is such a generic name that this could be about any number of similarly named departments around the world. 4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025 Israeli attack in Beirut

[edit]
November 2025 Israeli attack in Beirut (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)

It was a targeted killing of Haytham Ali Tabatabai. All the content is already included there. WP:REDUNDANT. No need for redirect because this isn't an expected search term. Longhornsg (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the same reasons as above. The article itself is pretty sort, I don't see a reason not to merge it to Haytham Ali Tabatabai. Oakchris1955 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with your reasoning and the page itself is very short, so I think it should be redirected. Qhairun (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Gal

[edit]
Alon Gal (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)

Various breaches he supposedly uncovered were done as part of his company work, which already has an article. I would suggest redirecting this bio here, but maybe he is indeed the notable person and the company article should be deleted instead. Or both are indeed notable subjects. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hudson Rock. All the sources are related to the data breach or company, and I can find no reliable SIGCOV about him specifically. The company isn't too big itself, so being a C-suite there without further independent SIGCOV isn't enough for a standalone article. HurricaneZetaC 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting! gidonb (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war

[edit]


Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war (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 appears to be a content fork. The material presented here is already fully covered in existing articles:

Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks

Gaza war hostage crisis

Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment_of_hostages

The article does not present substantial new, independently notable information. Instead, it basically duplicates content that is already included in those pages, or that can be appropriately added to them alone, meaning it has issues meeting WP:NOTCONTENT, WP:UNDUE. Not only that but it seems to me to more specifically be a WP:POVFORK, functioning as a separate page for material that fits naturally within other, well-established articles, apparently for the purpose of emphasis. The presentation of the material as-is also does not, imo, adhere to WP:NPOV.

Because the article represents a redundant and non-notable fork, and because its content is more appropriately handled within the existing articles listed above, the article does not meet WP:GNG and I believe deletion is appropriate. Any verifiable, neutrally presented, policy-compliant information can of course be merged into the relevant parent articles where appropriate. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject:
  • Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023)
  • Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings.
Wikipedia already treats the October 7 attacks and the Gaza war as distinct events (the latter initiated by the first), and each has its own standalone article. It is entirely consistent for the sexual-violence coverage to be divided the same way. A POV fork occurs when content is split to promote a particular viewpoint, but here, the split follows event boundaries and chronology, not POV. These are two distinct areas of documented abuse, even if the perpetrating groups are the same (Hamas/PIJ and so on, though on October 7 some of the sexual violence was carried out by civilian Gazan residents apparently). BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A content fork exists when a new article is created on a topic that is already handled, or can readily be handled, within existing articles. This is explicitly covered under WP:CFORK. In this case, every substantive point in the article is already covered or can be covered in established articles, as I've already shown in my nomination. RS treat sexual and gender-based abuse of hostages as part of the Gaza hostage crisis and sexual violence that began on October 7 and was then "ongoing", as per the UN reports. The October 7 article does not only cover events of that specific day for this reason, and imo it shouldn't. (We've had extensive discussions about this on the talk page for that article.)

If your point is that the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks article is too narrow in title or scope, the correct venue is a move request (to change the title) or a discussion on that article's talk page about its structure and framing.

Re: Wikipedia already treats the October 7 attacks and the Gaza war as distinct events (the latter initiated by the first), and each has its own standalone article. We already have an article specifically devoted to the hostages and their treatment during the Gaza war, where the content also naturally fits, and which along with the other article also already contains much of the content duplicated here. It is Gaza hostage crisis, and Gaza_war_hostage_crisis#Treatment_of_hostages. This is why I said it appears to be a WP:POVFORK, as it was made with duplicated materials from already existing articles and with a subject that fits naturally within other, well-established articles, apparently for the purpose of emphasis. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're seeing one of those articles that should both be an independent article and a section in another article. I'm seeing significant coverage from 2023 to 2025, meaning this is independently notable. I also think it would serve our readers better if we separated any sexual violence committed on the day of the attack versus the long captivity afterwards into different articles, as these are two different events. Bremps... 22:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is big enough and notable enough and is not really covered by any of the other topics mentioned. Nehushtani (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It definitely seems notable enough on its own - there are plenty of sources and the content is big enough to not be a stub (and big enough that giving it the amount of depth that Wikipedia could give it would make it too big to fit comfortably in the Gaza war hostage crisis section on treatment of hostages). I also can't say that I'm convinced by the argument that the material is already covered in the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks - I feel like the content in the "In captivity in Gaza" sub-section of the "Alleged acts by location" sub-section fits somewhat awkwardly there. The split into a separate article seems justified. NHCLS (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sexual violence committed against Israeli hostages is a distinct, well-documented subject that cannot be incorporated into another article without obscuring its scope, patterns, and gendered nature. Merging would collapse a unique set of facts into broader events, erasing critical information and contradicting established principles for documenting sexual and gender-based violence as a topic that requires independent analysis. Furthermore, sexual violence in a hostage situation is fundamentally different from sexual violence in a massacre context: these are distinct cases, each shaped by its own conditions of coercion, control, and abuse of power. Treating them as interchangeable diminishes the accuracy and integrity of the record. שלומית ליר (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be an LLM-generated response as it is not replying to what the AfD is about. We already have two pages that contain the information that was recently spun out into this POV fork and that are about this very subject, yet the response you have posted here is replying to an AfD for a long-established page with unique content that has no other page where it can fit without erasure.
    Why do we need to have a third page on this subject when we already have a long-established sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis page containing this content, and another one that is specifically devoted to the hostages which already includes their testimonies of sexual violence?
    Please respond to the actual case instead of the one that was responded to here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote, I find these cases unique and deserving of an article of their own. When writing about those who undergo sexual violence, the issue of silencing is often present; the cost of such silencing is the repetition of offenses and a weakening of victims’ trust in the ability of public institutions to acknowledge and address their experiences.
    Having a separate article ensures that these events are documented with the depth, clarity, and visibility they require. שלומית ליר (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE but packaged in ai slop User:Easternsaharareview this 23:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Surprised that this article has been nominated for deletion, as it clearly does not warrant such an extreme action. As observed above by several commenters, the sexual violence against hostages is a distinct and quite serious subject that is amply sources and certainly does not fit the criteria of a POV fork. Removing it would fail to do justice to the subject matter, and it would further enhance Wikipedia's growing reputation for non-neutrality and hostility to Israel. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: shud be "amply sourced." Apologize for misspelling. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how this is a content fork. This subject matter is significant and noteworthy enough to merit its own article, as it has been covered by many outlets. Sexual abuse of the hostages also should not be generalized as just "treatment of hostages" or merged into the "hostage crisis" - doing so would (unintentionally, I presume the nom was in good faith) diminish the impact of the abuse. TheInevitables (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BELONG and WP:ITSNOTABLE User:Easternsaharareview this 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is quite obviously a content fork made by an editor for the purpose of emphasizing the topic despite the fact that we already have two pages wholly devoted to it, one for sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7, and one for the hostages and their treatment in captivity which includes the same content. This same editor keeps making what appear to be LLM-generated pages duplicating content to emphasize topics that already have pages covering them. No attempt has been made to argue for why we need a third separate page on the same topic grounded in any policy.
The only attempt at a policy argument I've seen, aside from saying that it shows "bias against Israel" to delete a clear content fork made for POV purposes, is that the general article we have on the sexual violence has a title that implies an overly narrow scope. Yet we already have the same content included on that page, and we do so because the sexual violence against hostages is always covered in the main RS we have on it as part of the sexual violence that began on October 7. Look at the UN, Human Rights and journalistic reports on it and they all cover it in this context.
However, if this is the main problem, as Smallangryplanet said the proper venue for that is an RM to change the title to something like "Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7". Moreover, we already have a page devoted to the hostages and their treatment in captivity specifically which already includes the testimonies and the sexual violence. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As already said this is clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles also this is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject:
Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023)
Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only words that appear to be this editor's own are Keep: As already said this is... and "...also...." Per WP:NOTVOTE, !votes in formal discussions should be representative of individual views rather than simply an agreement with what has already been said, or indeed the text that has already been written. IMO, Wikitalovin1's comment should be discounted as a derivative restatement of existing arguments, not counted as a separate Keep !vote itself. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact i started my comment with alredy said Wikitalovin1 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't add any clear indication you were quoting, and you combined content from two separate comments in a way that could be taken to mean you were presenting it as your own. Please have a look at WP:DELAFD (and/or WP:REPEAT) - this is a discussion, not a counted vote, so repeating others' arguments (even or especially if you do not say you are quoting them) verbatim is not advised. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest collapsing your argumentation here, as it lengthy, insubstantive and interrupts the flow of discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, thought I had. Apologies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ynet and the Jerusalem Post should not be used by this article. These have a vested interested in creating propaganda for Israel. this bbc article which the article cites is the BBC saying that the Israeli 'experts' are saying that it occured, not BBC themselves. These 'experts' hold the WP:FRINGE belief that October 7 was a genocide, so they should not be paid. Thoes cited in the BBC report: Dinah Project, Ruth Halperin-Kaddar, Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas, and Nava Ben-Or are not independent from this topic. this middle east eye and the cnn report should be removed per WP:SYNTH, they do not mention sexual assault or violence. this apnews article is debunked (pbs ei (commentary on nyt)) so it should not be used for the same reason we don't include old studies that say cigarettes are good for you or that asbestos is safe for household use, WP:OUTDATED. Similarly, I think most of these articles can be disregarded because they have been exposed for lying since they were published before the pbs article (22 may 2024). Then, i think the remaining ones (2-3 citations actually on the topic) are based on the outdated reports, and mention the topic in passing, thus it does not meet WP:GNG User:Easternsaharareview this 23:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see both sides, but after carefully reviewing the content, sourcing and arguments, I believe a deletion is in order. I shall explain why. The new page was copied vebatim from the section devoted to the subject on the main page. The amount of content there falls well short of justifying a standalone page.
This goes to the point of distinctiveness and notability cited by multiple editors. I believe this misunderstands the sourcing. There is news coverage of the now four hostages and their testimonies. However, the substantive, best quality secondary sourcing such as the United Nations and other reports, all uniformly present sexual violence against hostages as part of the broader pattern of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) that began on October 7 and continued afterward. The page itself relies on these reports. We ought to follow this model of presentation as per WP:RS and WP:V. Moreover, separating the topic from that broader pattern dilutes its significance by erroneously framing it as an separate, distinct phenomenon rather than an integral part and extension of said pattern.
Even if independent notability had been established, this alone does not require or justify a standalone page, and declining to create one does not diminish the gravity of the subject. Rather the opposite, as I explained. This case reflects exactly what is recommended in WP:NOPAGE, which notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page.
My final concern is that the page by its design consists largely on repeating individual testimonies from news reports. These are already covered proportionately, succinctly, and with proper context in the existing parent article, and as presented here raise issues of WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:VL. I agree with @Oaktree b who expressed worry about a page that by its topic-design is set to function as a mere repository of individual sexual violence testimonies quoted at great length, which also runs against WP:OVERQUOTING.
I do, however, believe the parent article should be renamed. I support Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7. This matches how we title the equivalent page concerning SGBV against Palestinians, where we specify both the victim group and the time period: Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war. This should have been done long ago, and renders moot the claim that the main page is too narrow in scope. Lf8u2 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article is very important in terms of raising the awareness of these terrible actions by Hamas. The sources are very clear about the facts, which are also very different from the October 7th story. The Israeli hostages were kept in captivity - some of them for more than two years - and the conditions and the atmosphere changed completely in a way that makes maintaining a separate article a very justifiable decision. LidDahl (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument boils down to WP:BELONG. It does not counter the arguments about WP:NOPAGE but only says that the page should exist because Hamas is bad. That is not based on policy. User:Easternsaharareview this 23:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or the very least merge the Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war article with the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks page and then renamed the article as “Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis during the Gaza war”. Plus, I agree with some of the comments here, stating that the article is basically content fork. Qhairun (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks - I'm persuaded by Lf8u2's comment above. I support Qhairun's proposed title for the article though: "Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis during the Gaza war". Samuelshraga (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, and this also goes to @Qhairun, this CFORK was copied directly from the already existing section on the main page, so there is no need to merge. There is nothing new here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I say merge, what I'm getting at is that the title of the target page should be changed to reflect the inclusion of this content. I don't know if/how it's possible to find consensus to move a page's title in the AfD discussion of a separate page, but that's what I wanted to convey. If however the main page remains as Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks, then my comment should be taken as an argument for (second choice) keep, and the material shouldn't be duplicated on the other page. I think we do better with a single page for this material though, hence my !vote. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving a separate page to a different title is outside of the scope of AfD Katzrockso (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a POV fork, because the split is not based on a point of view but on facts. Sexual violence committed on the day of the attack and sexual violence committed during captivity are two different things, documented by different sources and investigated differently. Merging into a single article would hurt the subject and create confusion, which would likely harm neutrality rather than improve it. Keeping the topics separate allows a more balanced, proportional, and accurate presentation, in line with WP:NPOV and with the way reliable sources themselves present the material. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a LLM-generated response, and it does not engage with the content of the AfD. The user @Eliezer1987 has stated that they use LLMs for their edits in the past after other editors took notice of it. So you end up with a confused mangle of claims that have nothing to do with this AfD:
"This is not a POV fork, because the split is not based on a point of view but on facts." This is not what a POV Fork is, and the section the fork was copied directly from has the exact same RS-basis as it was a copy.
"documented by different sources and investigated differently" They are in fact documented by the exact same sources and investigated in the same way (first-hand testimonies), in the most comprehensive reports we have, which state explicitly that reliance on such testimonies is primary given the lack of physical evidence for various reasons (mistakes made by first responders, mismanagement, etc.).
"Merging into a single article would hurt the subject and create confusion, which would likely harm neutrality rather than improve it", this is not about a merger. The content for this CFORK was copied verbatim from the already existing page, and rather than creating confusion, it does precisely the opposite by placing it in context.
"Keeping the topics separate allows a more balanced, proportional, and accurate presentation, in line with WP:NPOV and with the way reliable sources themselves present the material." This is simply inaccurate as the RS do not present the material in this way at all, and the question of balance, proportionality and accuracy are entirely irrelevant as the content of the page was copied verbatim from the already existing section.
This is why I said to another editor who also appears to have used a LLM-generator to avoid doing so especially for AfDs because you end up generating responses that have no bearing on the actual content of the case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't written by LLM!! and the claim that it was is not only insulting, but also contributes nothing to the discussion. The fact that I mentioned previously that I used LLM does not mean that this is what was done here and even the opposite. Eliezer1987 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't read like LLM-generated text to me, did you use a tool on it that made you come to that conclusion? Nor is the argument confused, even though I disagree about the benefits of keeping the topic separate. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I used multiple LLM-checkers. Grammarly says 53% AI, ZeroGPT 100%, Scribrr 51%. However as they say they didn't use an LLM, I'll accept that. I still disagree regarding the quality of the arguments for reasons mentioned. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we're now taking up space on an AfD page openly speculating that a user is utilizing artificial intelligence to craft their responses? And flinging some essay at them as if it is policy? I really wish editors would confine themselves to the merits and not clog AfD pages with this kind of thing. I request that you hat this. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As these are completely different topics. There is no POV fork. Each one is in a different category, one speaks of the day of the attacks, the other speaks of the time the hostages were in captivity. The relation between the two is cause and consequence, but again, each one is notable for itself. It like saying all Wikipedia articles are POV fork of The Big Bang. Denisaptr (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just blatantly false, none of the 'victims' whose claims are listed here have Wikipedia articles of their own and do not have enough coverage to pass notability. This is just talking about WP:GNG, not the more restrictive WP:NEVENT User:Easternsaharareview this 00:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks so editors can selectively merge any relevant content to that page with the possibility for a page move, per WP:NOPAGE. The issue here is that this topic is effectively a list of specific survivor testimonies of hostages captured during the 7 October attacks. This is obviously currently better covered in the greater context of the October 7 attacks and further coverage of the evolution of sexual violence during the conflict, which is already covered at the aforementioned page. Hostages were taken as a result of the 7 October attacks, so it makes sense to cover all of this at the same page rather than arbitrarily split based on whether the sexual violence took place on 7 October or later - the source material does not distinguish these categories explicitly. As other editors have noted, this article duplicates much of the material at Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#In captivity in Gaza, so the really the redirect should be targeted there.
I would probably support a move to change the destination pages article title to expand its scope, but that is not within the scope of this AfD.
If the material at the page becomes burdensome or further information emerges, the topic may be spunout again (something I believe will likely occur eventually) Katzrockso (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment of hostages. POV fork or not, the page as is does not have sufficient content independent from nom's listed pages.
While held captivity in the Gaza Strip during the Gaza war hostage crisis, Israelis taken during the 7 October 2023 attacks allege sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault by Hamas or other Gazan militants.
This opening sentence, especially the words I have highlighted, all but limits where it can be redirected to - the primary topic here isn't October 7th but rather the hostage crisis. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 15:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge somewhere! I'm with the others who say that this article is unsustainable in its present form and causes excessive fragmentation in a domain where we already have too many articles. The problem isn’t FORK, POV, or GNG. It could be NOPAGE. It would be NOPAGE in its current form yet clearly and entirely is a premature SPINOFF without creating UNDUE at a full merge. I believe this should either be redirected or merged. As for which option is better or where to exactly, I haven’t had the time to reach a final conclusion, so I’m just sharing the part of my decision that I have reached. Basically, I would support a reasonable redirect or merge as suggested by others. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your suggestion for a merge is reasonable, but do you think that this search term is plausible enough for a redirect? User:Easternsaharareview this 23:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Gaza war hostage crisis which already has a section for hostage accounts of their treatment. Putting this information there provides the appropriate context per WP:NOPAGE, and as gidonb just noted there is insufficient material for a spinoff from that article. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge This page doesn't really need to exist on its own. Most of the content is just individual survivor testimonies, which are already covered in the main article. Splitting it like this fragments the coverage, so its better to just have it all in one place so its easier to understand the broader timeline and connect it to the treatment of hostages. A standalone page mainly serves as a collection of quotations from news reports, without adding any analysis or context beyond what's already in the article. Any relevant content not already on it can also be merged to the hostages page. Genabab 22:22, 7 December 2025 (GMT)


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=1326220035"