The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Hever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A MIA-kind of a soldier who's been missing for twenty years. Not notable by any MILHIST standards I'm aware of, and it strikes me as a clear example of BLP1E. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Israeli MIAs. Delete reluctantly. I can see a situation where an unsolved mystery gets a lot of coverage and international attention over many years, but this incident, while it has some coverage, is concentrated in a relatively short period and covered only by Israeli news outlets. I agree this is a BLP1E situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as a whole and only covered in Israeli news sources. BLP1E. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although I see the argument with the WP:BLP1E, I do not believe it applies here, as the search has been dropped and restarted multiple times making it multiple events. The article utilizes sources that show coverage over a 20 years and there I believe it meets WP:LASTING and WP:GNG. - Galatz^Talk 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly rename to missing person case and not to the person. Note this BIO1E and not BLP1E (there is little to no expectation he is alive). There are copious and on going RSes covering this (yes, the searches and new leads are still being covered - every skeleton someone finds leads to a story). He does not meet SOLDIER, the case however amply meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also thinking that it should be moved to the event rather than the person, however when I looked at Gilad Shalit to see how that is listed, since he is best known for being an MIA soldier as well, I noticed it was listed as just his name, so I thought this made sense as well. - Galatz^Talk 18:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shalit is a bit different in that he generated some, rather gossipy, coverage post-release. Hever really is only notable for being missing - and for the ongoing searches after him - that is still being covered - e.g. Israel follows up on false tip missing soldier was at a mental health clinic (well OK - someone thought he might be alive in a mental asylum), Family marks 20 years to disappearance of IDF soldier Guy Hever - and this November 2017 isn't the exception to the coverage - he's being covered in this manner on and on in the news. In books, even a few journal papers - e.g. Kaplan, Danny. "Commemorating a suspended death: Missing soldiers and national solidarity in Israel." American Ethnologist 35.3 (2008): 413-427.. The missing person case easily passes GNG - just on English sources.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess there also is a big difference as Israel knew Shalit was alive and in Gaza. They even released video and photos of him holding newspapers as proof. I don't believe anyone is claiming Hever is alive and being held captive. Just the name appears to be the common convention in Category:Israeli prisoners of war. - Galatz^Talk 19:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Since we should be treating this as an event: "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)", according to WP:EVENTCRIT. No sign of diverse coverage; the same media outlets have just provided the same routine updates with little to no significant information. No new leads can be expected in a missing persons case, but the lack of a historical significance is what keeps me from voting anything other than delete. All we have here is a old news story on one event that is fueled by media speculation and theories but no actual indications of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that coverage in Jerusalem Post had been far form "routine". Proquest shows about 30 articles in JPost, long, reported articles over the span of 20 years. titles include: Israel to resume search for missing solider. Guy Hever disappeared without a trace from his northern Israeli base in 1997 (2016,) IDF renews search for missing soldier Guy Hever]] (2013), Israel resumes search for soldier missing since 1997, BBC , 2016, and many more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article provides continuing coverage from reliable and verifiable sources about the historically significant efforts over the years to find him. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to ongoing coverage in article that is ONGOING over 2 decades, and the fact that a good deal more exists, including years of articles form JTA [1]; two finm The Forward:

  • Family of Captive Seeks U.S. Help
  • Do Skeletal Remains Belong to Israeli MIAs?
  • The Times of London: Schalit prisoner swap could bring freedom for 'next leader' of Fatah, relevant text: "Negotiated solutions are not always possible. The whereabouts of Guy Hever, an Israeli soldier missing in the Golan Heights in 1997, are unknown." 2009. and many more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a trivial mention, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article meets Wikipedia criteria based on sources--IamIRAQI (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources that provide significant coverage are rather narrow, and it's still one event that must meet WP:EVENTCRIT inclusion criteria. I'm not really seeing it yet, based on the sources provided. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources are far from narrow. Every Israeli news organization has covered this in depth multiple times (even dozens of times) over the last 20 years. NCRIME (or GNG) requires national coverage. This has also been covered in international news sources, the US congress, the European council, and several books.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- unfortunately there are a lot of MIA cases. Despite the media attention, I can't see why his case is more important than others. He was not notable before the mia incident, therefore he still is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since its establishment, Israel has been in a constant state of conflict with its neighbors. Torture or murder of Israeli soldiers who are captured by enemies is considered de rigueur and a military directive allegedly directs soldiers to kill their comrades rather than let them be captured alive. There are only five Israeli soldiers who are missing in action. For the duration of his captivity, each will continue to be the subject of significant and sustained news coverage of the type that makes a person notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Admittively, I still believe most of what I wrote still applies to this article and the keep !votes up until now were not at all convincing or stronger applications of policy. But then I read MS's comment. He accurately describes why this person will have enduring significance in a way I, and really no one else, thought of. I recommend renaming the article and it needs a clean-up but I am changing my !vote, fully convinced by MS's statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . See above. Ongoing coverage has been established. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as stated above, "unfortunately there are a lot of MIA cases". Not seeing lasting notability; trivia. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.