Shortcut

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. 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

Kobi Arad

AfDs for this article:
Kobi Arad (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)

Yet another paid for spam page for this non notable musician. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Notability is not inherited from name dropping. None of the listed awards are major (or even credible). Refbombed to primary sources and PR pieces masquerading as real journalism. A single allmusic capsule review is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came across this page with the intention of improving its neutrality and sourcing. While I recognize that the article could benefit from further refinement, it is clear that Kobi Arad meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). He has received multiple awards and nominations, including those recognized as notable within Wikipedia itself—establishing their significance. Notability is defined by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:GNG) rather than subjective interpretations of an award’s importance. Given that sources like JazzTimes and All About Jazz have reviewed his work, and considering his influence within contemporary jazz and fusion, deletion would not align with Wikipedia’s inclusion standards. Instead of removal, enhancing the article to better reflect Wikipedia’s quality guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:V) would be the more constructive course of action. --DenoZUka (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — DenoZUka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - I've been an editor for two years and am looking for opportunities to contribute more actively to Wikipedia while improving my editing skills. As part of this, I’ve been reviewing discussions and pages where I can assist. In this case, I agree with DenoZuka that the subject meets the notability criteria under WP:MUSICBIO, given their multiple recognized awards and significant coverage. The sources provided appear to align with Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing, and I believe the article should be improved rather than deleted. I vote to Keep! Nikzadfrance (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — Nikzadfrance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy Keep – I am the creator of this page. While I was compensated, I followed all proper AFC procedures and fully disclosed my association, ensuring compliance with all rules. The AFC was approved by Admin @Cullen328, who has made over 112,000 edits.

Kobi Arad meets WP:MUSICBIO as he has received multiple awards, including the Hollywood Music in Media Awards and the Hollywood Independent Music Awards —both of which have Wikipedia pages, confirming their credibility as recognized awards. Additionally, he has been featured in reputable publications such as All About Jazz, Ultimate Guitar, and JazzTimes, none of which were paid placements.

Accusing someone of paid placements without evidence is unwarranted. Furthermore, the nominator had previously marked the page with a Paid Editing Tag but did not initially propose deletion. However, after an experienced admin removed the tag, they suddenly nominated the page for deletion. This seems questionable—perhaps a sign of personal bias or retaliation?Dwnloda (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dwnloda, your page says you edited the Kobi Arad article for payment. How is that an accusation? Isn't it just a statement of fact? Please explain! gidonb (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator appeared to suggest that the subject has paid placements and "PR pieces" in the media. This is what I was addressing. None of the citations I have included are paid. Legally, all U.S.-based publications must disclose paid placements, so if any were sponsored, they would include clear advertising or sponsorship language. Dwnloda (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
duffbeerforme said PR pieces masquerading as real journalism. These don’t necessarily require payment. Writers are often busy and underpaid, relying on PR material that they publish with minimal changes. The more obscure the website or publication, the more prevalent this is—though it also exists in major outlets. If someone hires a paid writer for a community encyclopedia entry, PR concerns should extend beyond Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first AfD was in 2010, which isn't particularly strong evidence. The next, in 2020, claims there's been an LTA focused on this page since the first AfD, which if true is suggestive that this new instance of the page is also a product of this LTA. Also, a tenured editor accepting an article at AfC is not protective against deletion; even experienced reviewers can make mistakes and in any case the instructions are to accept if we think it's likely to survive an AfD, which many editors interpret as >50%, so they very well may have thought that it was borderline but worth accepting. A look at the sources, excluding the obvious trivial mentions or database entries:
  • Several pages in a Master's thesis. I am disinclined to count a MA as an academic source contributing to notability but I suppose it may be acceptable, I'm not familiar with prior art here.
  • Ultimate Guitar "Community Feed" news article, bylined "eriik22", "written by a UG user". WP:UGS, doesn't contribute to WP:GNG.
  • JazzTimes review by a "community author", likewise seems user generated.
  • TunedLoud article. Bylined "Staff". There's a fiverr listing advertising a "professional review styled article" in TunedLoud for $15, which I can't link because fiverr's on the URL blacklist.
  • TheMusic review. The writer "wants to help you as an artist succeed and get the write-ups your band/Your music deserves! With a writing background of over 15+ years, he will review your music and give your band and/or your music the review it needs to be seen in a manner of professionalism".
  • Ynet profile. Trying to figure out whether this is likely to be a paid piece through google translate is not going great, so let's give this one a pass.
  • Edit: the Rolling Stones article's full coverage of Arad: "[The album] prominently features the likes of ... pianist Kobi Arad." Obviously not significant coverage.
So, of all the sources in the article or mentioned at this AfD, contributing to WP:GNG we have a masters thesis and a piece that I'm not convinced isn't paid because I can't read the language. Granting both of these the most benefit of doubt I feel up for, this still comes out to a delete. It is possible there are further sources, especially in Hebrew. I was able to find one in Euclid Magazine, bylined Euclid. They sell sponsored blog posts for $1,200 each, which seem to be unmarked on their website. ...and I can't link it because the entire domain is URL blacklisted, so there's that! Rusalkii (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: awards, both the awards listed do not appear to be particularly prominent - while the bar is subjective, that criteria is "major music award", and "has a Wikipedia article", while pretty much necessary, is not actually anywhere near sufficient. Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep- I am in support of keeping this article as he is a notable figure in the jazz music scene, having won multiple awards such as the Hollywood Music in Media Award and the Independent Music Award, has collaborated with renowned artists like Stevie Wonder, Cindy and Carlos Santana, and Roy Ayers, (sources suggests that clearly). Discography is well cited by discogs. Also the page is well-supported by reliable sources, I added a rolling stone link as well, in line with Wikipedia's WP:BLP and WP:GNG guidelines. Wavyydayy (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC) — Wavyydayy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I am strongly opposed to undeclared paid editing and as an administrator, I have blocked 11,482 accounts as of this writing. Probably 80% were undeclared paid editors violating our policies. But paid editing is not banned. Wikipedia has established clear policies and guidelines for paid editors to follow, some of which are required by the Wikimedia Foundation. They must comply with the Paid-contributions disclosure. They must use the Articles for Creation process and abide by the decisions of independent and uninvolved reviewers. They need to refrain from making substantive changes to accepted articles (except for reverting obvious vandalism) and instead place formal Edit requests on article talk pages. The original author of this article has done all of that in good faith. The article has plenty of references. If some are weak, the solution is to remove those, not to delete the article. The musician has won a Hollywood Music in Media Award. This may not be the best known award in music but it is a notable award. Kobi Arad is a notable musician. Not every award is a Nobel Prize. Not every musician is Bob Dylan. Not every physicist is Albert Einstein. Not every politician is Abraham Lincoln. Not every actor is Meryl Streep. This encyclopedia is rapidly approaching seven million articles. When the encyclopedia is constantly swarmed by undisclosed, often malicious paid editors, it is a big mistake, in my view, to target the work of an ethical paid editor trying to do the right thing. It sends the message that many Wikipedia editors will target your work and try to erase it even if you do everything properly, and that just allows the bad actors to rationalize their bad behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli support for Hamas

Israeli support for Hamas (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 is not a significat topic of study or coverage. Much of the article is synthetically composed of material from sources unrelated to the article topic—which is not itself a reason for deletion, rather for revision, but from my research it appears that this is a reflection of the lack of significant coverage of this topic. Any relevant material not already there can be merged into History of Hamas. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "reliable" is more of what I was going for. Edited accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing that most of the articles with this as their primary topic are just characterizing Israel's earlier Hamas policy as favoring it against the PLO, and generally avoid using the language of "support". The fact that there's no academic source on the "Israeli support of Hamas" is telling. As an analogy, we wouldn't have an article for "Indian provocations of Pakistan", though there are many articles assessing Indian foreign policy as doing so—the information from those sources would belong on Wikipedia, but don't collectively suggest "Indian provocations of Pakistan" as a notable topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are enough citations from reliable sources over a long time span mentioning the topic (although not always using the exact word "support" - the article could be renamed something like "Role of the Israeli government in the rise to power to Hamas" or "Israeli enabling of Hamas," if it's necessary to avoid the word "support"). NHCLS (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a controversial subject, could we see a source analysis? Thanks, in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaya Keller

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

Reason: WP:COI: The author, user:Neriah, is (Redacted). Please see 1, 2: 1. image author and uploader, 2. Nathan (Chaya's husband, a full professor in the Biu) - the same author and camera, a different date; image was taken at home: no Torah books at the math dept. in Biu, and (Redacted).
Neriah does not have a WP:PMR permission, but moved the article without leaving a redirect.
WP:NACADEMIC: Neriah raised criteria 1,2: Krill Prize and a solution of the Ringel's problem.
There is no secondary international source, like the CNN or The New York Times, for example.
The solution of Ringel's problem was made with additional four colleagues. There is no Wikipedia article about this problem.
Chaya Keller is an associate professor, not a professor. Loeweopta (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted). Loeweopta (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. As Helpful Raccoon has pointed out, international sources are not required to prove notability, and an alleged COI is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I'm unsure of whether the subject passes WP:NPROF, but I think she probably does pass WP:GNG on the basis of coverage like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Her team's solution to Ringel's problem also got some press coverage, such as this article in Haaretz [8]. Maths isn't my area and I'm not too familiar with the sources that covered her so I'm very open to changing my mind here, but my sense is that her publications and awards aren't quite significant enough to meet WP:NPROF, but that the other coverage is probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per WP:TOOSOON. The best argument for notability I see is the Krill prize. Looking at the other recipients, I see a fairly prestigious early career prize, which I do not think meets WP:NPROF C2. (I think it indicates likely future notability.) The media coverage I see is so tightly tied to the Krill prize and localized in time that I think falls under WP:BLP1E. Watching in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete. Agree with Russ Woodroofe. This is a mid-career mathematician doing very strong work. In 5-10 years they probably will be more widely recognized and cited. So if we delete, I recommend it be done without prejudice towards a new page if WP:NPROF is met someday. I don't think her citation rate hits C1 yet. Like Russ, I could be swayed if better evidence is found. Qflib (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree she is not there on academic impact (WP:PROF#C1) yet; I think among the Ringel circle conjecture crew, only Shakhar Smorodinsky has a case for notability that way. The only plausible avenue for notability for Keller is the Krill Prize (maybe WP:PROF#C2) and the ensuing publicity (maybe WP:GNG) but I think that the prize's focus on "promising researchers", its national-level focus, and its "numerous recipients" [9] make it too low-level to demonstrate clear notability and that the publicity for it falls short of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is sufficient SIGCOV here to meet the GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails the WP:NPROF criteria on almost every metric, with a dismal academic impact. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON and the subject will gain academic notability in the future, but since 'possible future notability' is not a reason for keeping a presently GNG non-compliant article, this should be deleted. Eelipe (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Seychelles relations

Israel–Seychelles relations (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)

Article primarily based on 3 primary sources from the Israeli government. 2 of these merely confirm no embassies, a third is a factoid that Seychelles allowed Israelis to visit during the pandemic. There appears to be no third party of these relations. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now you have reacted to everyone who disagreed with you yet never convinced why this article should be deleted. There should have been a strong case in the intro. We did not see that. Instead, you shopped in the references, now shop in the sources. The problem is that sufficient unchallenged sources remain. And the listed articles are just a small sample. Maariv regularly covers the subject. For example: Maariv1 Maariv2 Maariv3 Maariv4. gidonb (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
can you tone it down a notch? LibStar (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and arguing over split hairs over references and sources. Suggest you step back from your combative tone. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not combative at all. Would be happy to explain why the distinction between sources and references is important but you can also read about all that elsewhere. Have reacted only below my own writings, where you engaged me, as you did with others. Did not make up my mind hastily. And I see nuances regarding the article. Have detailed these below. Unfortunately, you do drain the sources that totally support keeping the article time and again under vague waves. I hope people can see through the noise. gidonb (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it combative. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No doubt the article is poorly written and the sourcing is lacking, but that can be resolved without deletion. The topic meets WP:N and WP:RSs do exist for this topic. Eelipe (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks citations to reliable, secondary sources, and I am not finding any either. Yilloslime (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by the GNG. The article is supported by multiple sources, identified by me in in the comment above and within the article itself. More sources exist. No compelling case for deletion has been made. The deletion rationale mentions sources, yet only critiques references. It selectively focuses on three references that support the article's content, while ignoring the Israel Channel 12 news item that supports notability. On the downside: the article is rather short, yet meets the threshold for viability. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Channel 12 or 13? LibStar (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 12. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several of the Keeps here lack P&G substance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Images

Redirects

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16. ( | history)
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


Requested Moves

Miscellaneous

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel
No tags for this post.