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.
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:
Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool. gidonb (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: despite what @Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per WP:SOURCESEXIST. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKEWalsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)
Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g🗯️09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just a quick reply (this is not intended as a counterargument, I have not reviewed all of these sources) – just wanted to inform you that the ADL cannot be used as a source on these subjects since I noticed at least a couple of those links are to the ADL website. See WP:ADLPIA. Vanilla Wizard 💙19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a closer look at all of the sources here, and I can't say I'm impressed.
To start, we must note that nearly all of these are opinion pieces and should be handled appropriately per WP:RSOPINION. Such sources can be used with attribution as statements of opinion, but cannot be used for statements asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice. That already raises some significant issues. If we're going to make an article with a title like "Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", it might be nice to have something other than op-eds. Furthermore, some of these sources are unreliable or questionably reliable, most of them would be considered biased on the relevant subject, and some of them aren't even about the topic at all, they only happen to contain some keywords that make it sound like they'd be related.
I'll go through them all in order:
The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C (talk • contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it probably is independently notable, but there is some discussion of denialism on the misinformation article, so it is a suitable target. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here. Vanilla Wizard 💙18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements.FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn’t seem like a notable enough subject for its own article, and reads more like a personal ramble than anything else Snokalok (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: