Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Palestine. 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|Palestine|~~~~}} 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 Palestine. 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


Palestine

[edit]

Egypt and the Gaza war

[edit]
Egypt and 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)

WP:SYNTHed together list created by a sock of various actions the Egyptian government has taken during the Gaza war.

Mostly covered, where it should be, at Egypt-Palestine relations and International reactions to the Gaza war. Longhornsg (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Beit Hanoun offensive and siege

[edit]
2025 Beit Hanoun offensive and siege (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)

WP:Redundant of May 2025 Gaza offensive. Same Israeli operation, too. Yet another totall unncessary WP:SPINOUT in this topic area leading to fragmented coverage that doesn't benefit our readers. Longhornsg (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Gaza

[edit]
New Gaza (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect to Counter-Terrorism Strike Force. RS don't talk about this as a specific plan, but rather WP:PASSING mentions of aspirational plans. We don't need stubby articles created everytime there's a new phrase in a news article. Longhornsg (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect per nom Oreocooke (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article can easily be expanded upon. JaxsonR (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Wait until more information is out. I think we can wait another month or two. KashanAbbas (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yanai Hetzroni

[edit]
Yanai Hetzroni (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)

Also including

Over 1,000 Israelis were killed in the October 7 attacks. There appears to be nothing that makes these children, however senseless, tragic and painful their deaths are, anymore worthy of an article than the many others who were killed in the attacks. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a Wikipedia policy. All of the coverage basically dates to around the same time as the attacks, raising WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS concerns. It's worth noting that later Haaretz reporting from 2024 found that the house both children were in was one that had been deliberately shelled and raided by Israeli military forces following a failed hostage negotiation [1], something which is omitted from the articles at the time of this nomination. The place to cover both of these children is the Be'eri massacre article, where they are already mentioned and their deaths can be placed into context with wider events of the Kibbutz massacre. WP:VICTIM says: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect both to Be'eri massacre. Fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an easy case. There are reliable sources, and I agree there is enough coverage to establish notability. But this coverage is very closely tied to the moment when the tragic deaths occurred. After looking at WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I am also persuaded that it is better not to keep this as a standalone page, and instead to incorporate the relevant material into the main article about the massacre. Ismeiri (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both easily meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NBIO. When that is the case, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply since that is only when the article does not otherwise satisfy notability requirements. In this case, both articles have significant, secondary, independent, reliable coverage. Outlets include The Independent, BBC, National Post, The Jerusalem Post (multiple times), and many, many more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't provided a good reason why these articles should be an exception to the guidance given at WP:VICTIM. Killing of civilians and taking civilians as hostages are war crimes under the Geneva convention, and they therefore clearly fall under the "criminal event" criteria for WP:VICTIM to be applicable. WP:VICTIM suggests that exceptions to this guidance should have ...had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. (emphasis mine). I don't think it's reasonable to argue that these children had a large role in the October 7 attacks so I don't consider this applicable. The appropriate place to cover these children is the Be'eri massacre article in line with the guidance at WP:VICTIM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal

[edit]
List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal (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)

Mostly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide#Statements by Israeli officials. The main article presents the material in a more encyclopedic format: it focusses more on what has received more secondary coverage and includes balancing and contextual information about the subject from reliable sources. This page just presents quotes sorted alphabetically by speaker, sourced almost exclusively to primary sources. Proposing therefore to redirect instead of duplicating the material in this form. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep
  • WP:REDUNDANTFORK says It becomes a problem when there are two articles about the exact same thing, or any two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other, such as two outlines, two portals, two templates, two categories, etc. This is a list and the other is a corollary prose article, so they clearly qualify as not being two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other and therefore WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply. I made this point before but I think relitigating this argument here is warranted.
  • I'd like people who nominated for deletion to explain precisely why having a mainspace article and a list on the same topic is not permitted here but is permitted in other pages. Because every criticism made of the list seems broadly applicable to all lists across Wikipedia as a whole about topics that are notable enough to have their own corollary prose articles about the same topic. For example, why doesn't all criticism of this article on behalf of being an "unhelpful list better existing in more encyclopedic prose format" (the gist of the non-WP:ASPERSION counterarguments as I understand them) also apply to merging List of Puerto Rican flags into Flag of Puerto Rico, or deleting List of Puerto Rican flags (a Good Article) altogether? Even still, I can understand merging a lot more than deleting altogether, whereas pertaining to attempts at fully deleting the list as a whole without in any capacity preserving the information in the list—I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more than a little suspicious this is an attempt to WP:CENSOR information that clearly meets Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY criteria.
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please refrain from casting aspersions by saying that this is an attempt to WP:CENSOR information that clearly meets Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY criteria.
  2. Appealing to NOTCENSORED to justify inclusion is a bad argument.
SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not appealing to WP:NOTCENSORED to justify inclusion. I'm appealing to WP:NOTCENSORED to show how some arguments against its inclusion are bad arguments, which is very different. Sir Joseph said Seems POINTY rather than what we should be posting. This point violates WP:CENSOR, which says discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The only broader claim I made with WP:CENSORSHIP was pertaining to attempts at fully deleting the list as a whole without in any capacity preserving the information in the list, which does not include everyone advocating for its deletion. Even if you don't like this list, the information should clearly be, at least in part, migrated elsewhere per WP:OVERLAP (which says if there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap that this is a reason to merge, rather than delete, the pages) and WP:ATD-M which reaffirms this conclusion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I agree the article should be merged if it is not kept. I agree that it should not be outright deleted. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - in that case nothing I said about WP:CENSORSHIP applies at all to you. And happy to clarify. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandraaaacs1989: Thank you for the clarification. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are !voting on this article not those other ones and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep an article so I based my !vote on this article being a redudant fork not on those other articles. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like people who nominated for deletion to explain precisely why having a mainspace article and a list on the same topic is not permitted here but is permitted in other pages. This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GothicGolem29 SuperPianoMan9167
No, this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That would be me saying "X article is just as popular so we should keep this article", which is clearly not what I'm saying.
I am pointing out that some of the logic brought forward, if accepted, could equally be applied as an argument to remove any list on Wikipedia, which is clearly a logical contradiction if we accept that lists are sometimes a good thing to have on Wikipedia and that you can't advocate against a list's existence on the basis of arguments that necessarily follow simply from it being a list.
For example, the opening notes by Samuelshraga say:
  • The main article presents the material in a more encyclopedic format: it focusses more on what has received more secondary coverage [... and this article is] sourced almost exclusively to primary sources - Okay, this is fair. Not enough secondary coverage, which is something we can edit this article to include more of, rather than deleting it altogether.
  • and includes balancing and contextual information about the subject from reliable sources. - Okay, balancing and contextualizing information. That's something that can also be fixed via edits rather than deletion since there's a row specifically dedicated to balancing and contextualizing information presented
  • This page just presents quotes sorted alphabetically by speaker - Well yes, because it's a list. So this seems like a ding against it for being a list since nearly all lists on Wiki are sorted alphabetically (since he said it "just" presents alphabetically).
There's some additional undertones I was catching that seemed to be going after it for being a list, but I don't think it would be useful to focus too much on the semantics of this as I might be a mistaken about exactly what some people mean. I just wanted to nip this line of criticism in the bud by legitimizing the concept of list corollaries to prose articles by providing an example of Good Articles that do exactly this (that would not have been accepted as good articles if this list duplicate criticism logic were true). So no, this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandraaaacs1989 Clarification then: When stated that you wanted the editors !voting for delete to explain why and then pointed out that there are other lists that are permitted was that an argument from you to keep the article?. If you were just making a point on future ramifcations without trying to argue that other lists have been permitted then I can accept it was not other stuff but if it was an argument to keep it then yeah it is OTHERSTUFF as you are pointing out other articles exist and so this one should too. And I am somewhat skeptical that this would be applied to every list if this is redirected or deleted but that is a matter for after this afd I do not see that as a reason to keep this article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's different because I was noting a Good article list that exists as a corollary to a prose article to show that corollary lists do not violate any policy and are commonplace. If you read the examples on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that would be saying this list should exist because the Puerto Rico list is similar in popularity. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the Wikipedia:Good article criteria that makes me think that the Puerto Rico flags list had to be assessed for whether it unnecessarily duplicated material from another page before being declared a GA. If a generalisable rule about duplication of material between prose and list form was established or referenced there, that needs to be shown, not assumed. Otherwise this is very much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which has nothing specifically to do with comparing popularity, that's just one of several examples and not the most applicable one here). Samuelshraga (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As @Alexandraaaacs1989 said, they already argued on talk that This is a list and the other is a corollary prose article, so they clearly qualify as not being two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other and so WP:REDUNDANTFORK doesn't apply. I answered them there that when WP:REDUNDANTFORK talks about two pages of the same type it lists: two outlines, two portals, two templates, two categories, etc - the examples are all types of pages in terms of the wikipedia project (e.g. you can have a category page and a mainspace page on the same topic). These two pages are both mainspace articles, which is one type.
Their argument about Puerto Rican flags is not one I feel competent to argue on the merits - for all I know there is a redundant content fork there. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reasonable argument for either inclusion or deletion really. As for the rest, the less said the better. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I drew a different conclusion - that a list and a prose article are two different types. Otherwise List of Puerto Rican flags would not be a good article since it covers the same topic as Flag of Puerto Rico in list format rather than prose format. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's 3 problems with this.
  1. You're extrapolating a meaning of what WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies to from two articles about Puerto Rican flags and the assumption that they're compliant with it, rather than from the text of WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
  2. You're assuming that good article status is relevant, which I've explained above why it isn't.
  3. List of Puerto Rican flags got GA status in 2009, years before the Flag of Puerto Rico article was split off from it, so in this case it's clear that there was no discussion of this issue related to it being a GA.
This is my last response to you here, I think there are diminishing returns on the usefulness of this - if you feel I need to respond to something further let me know on my talk please. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or BLAR per nom and SuperPianoMan, as well as WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza imports

[edit]
Gaza imports (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 a WP:CFORK of Blockade of the Gaza Strip. The material is already covered in the parent article, which is more comprehensive, better maintained, and regularly updated. This page has not seen meaningful updates in a long time and does not add any substantial independent coverage beyond what is already included elsewhere. Keeping it only leads to unnecessary duplication and fragmented coverage. If deletion fails, I would also be fine with a redirect to the parent article instead. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech for Palestine

[edit]
Tech for Palestine (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)

Most of the refs are only passing mentions and don't meet GNG. The only thing this org is most notable for is the wikipedia editing campaign, and that seems to not have WP:SUSTAINING coverage otherwise. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I see no reason to remove this article. Clearly a notable organization/event in the history of public influence campaigns and in the history of influence campaigns on Wikipedia in particular. Seems to be connected with the ARBPIA5 case and other events that generated major coverage and discourse on biases on Wikipedia. A quick search shows coverage in multiple sites, including The Guardian, the Jewish Journal, the Palestine Chronicle, the Daily Star, and others. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion or Keep article - I'm not sure why this article is being nominated for deletion. This is a source I found based on just a preliminary search. Perhaps more exist. Certainly WP:NOTABLE nonetheless. Kvinnen (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By the way, for those above, "Keep", "Delete", "Merge" or some other version are more standard nomenclature for AfDs. As for sourcing, this article was notable when I first published, it, but is only more notable now. If we need to have talk page discussions to flesh out language, fine, but this is an easy pass for WP:GNG if not other notability guidelines. The claim about "passing mentions" is just false. The coverage is both significant WP:SIGCOV and sustained, in depth, and independent. Again, an easy GNG pass. Also, once notable, always notable re:Wikipedia editing campaign. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Keep. Notability is not a question here, this group was all over the news for a good time and since it was a court case involved there is no lack of evidence. examples:
https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
https://techforpalestine.org/
https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/380074/gaming-the-wiki-system/
https://github.com/techforpalestine
https://unpacked.media/anti-israel-activists-are-rewriting-jewish-history-on-wikipedia-heres-why-it-matters/
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/business/2025/03/07/wikipedia-roiled-with-internal-strife-overpage-editsabout-the-middle-east/81935309007/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BassiStone (talk • contribs)

Roman Palestine

[edit]
Roman Palestine (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)

Fork of Syria Palaestina, Judaea (Roman province), etc. which adequately cover the topic(s). ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syria palestina as a description of part of the region does go back to Hellenistic times (see Herodotus), and this is information strangely absent from our article on the topic. Nevertheless, there is a need for this overview article on Roman Palestine, as it starts with the Roman occupation and extends into (or by some definitions even encompasses) Byzantine Palestine, depending on how it is defined. Our articles on History of Palestine or Timeline of Palestine indicate the need for an article covering this period. Tiamut (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the suggestions above. An editor from Mars (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep per richard nevell User:Easternsaharareview this 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since I've enquired with @SFR about whether I'm able to touch this topic, and definitely not gotten a blanket 'no' based on title alone, I will simply note that there is no deletion rationale here, with the AfD stemming from confusion over what constitutes a fork. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian families

[edit]
Palestinian families (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 has numerous complex issues. I found it via recentchanges when I saw the edit on the left here, and I proceeded to remove the whole paragraph. However, looking at the rest of the article, it doesn't get any better.

  • From the article title and lead, you'd expect that the article seems to be about Palestinian family units and how they work, akin to an article like Family in the United States, however it very quickly turns into a largely unsourced list of Palestinian families.
  • There's signs of AI through the entire article, including at least one damning source-to-text discrepancy; in the section 'Lineage traditions', we have a statement The continuity of a lineage name therefore marked not only territorial rootedness but also the transmission of skills—script, education, recitation—that were prized in churches, courts, mosques, and that appear in late Ottoman and Mandate records for Palestinian towns. which is sourced to a paper titled "Palestine in Transformation [...]" by A Scholch. I found a PDF of that paper here, and a ctrl+f for "continuity" reveals no such passage, and the term "lineage name" turns up nothing in the entire 365-page document.
  • 6 out of the 7 sections at the end of the article are completely unsourced
  • There's a section titled "Notable member: Ihsan Tawfiq Salha" which discusses a single person, which is then... subsectioned into 3 sections about more families. I suppose these subsections were somehow displaced from the 'List of families' section, and the section about Ihsan Salha was supposed to be a subsection for one of the families?
  • I really don't have time for an in-depth source review here, but looking at the titles of the references, I'm not really seeing any SIGCOV about Palestinian family units as a subject to even warrant an article.

This article is a complete mess. There's maybe some content here that could be salvaged and retooled into a new article on Palestinian kinship or something akin to that, or maybe just a List of Palestinian families if there's enough notability of individual families to warrant that, but I think this article as it stands needs to go; if there's anything workable here it'd be more easily built from the ground up than trying to find it in the midst of the AI slop and malformed construction here. Athanelar (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the nomination. I do not think it is any more significant than "Brazilian family" or "Montenegrin family". Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It quite literally is, there are many sources about it. The Brazilian family may also be a notable topic, there are quite a few sources which show up. As for Montenegro, it is a relatively new country so not much shows up. Thus, Montenegro and Palestine can not be compared here, but Brazil can as both Brazil and Palestine have sources studying their respective family structures. User:Easternsaharareview this 05:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. Aside from that, organizationally this article is a complete mess. Even if it's worth having an article on this topic, it seems WP:DYNAMITE would be the best solution. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. This topic is absolutely fundamental to the understanding of Palestinian society, and the idea that we would have no article on it is horrifying. It is true that the article is in poor condition in multiple ways, but that is a reason for cleanup, not for deletion. Regarding the basis-free claim of AI use, the book (not "paper") of the historian Alexander Schlöch is an excellent source that has a huge amount of relevant material; at least half the book is devoted to the Palestinian family/clan structure and history. Plenty of the other sources are also excellent; the fact that they are often cited without page numbers is a problem to correct, not a deletion justification. A recent excellent source is this book. Other sources include this book, and this book. The mere fact that there is a large academic literature on the topic proves that the notability requirement is handsomely met. Zerotalk 03:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zero0000 I didn't dispute that the book is a good source, I pointed out that there's text in the article sourced to the book which doesn't seem to appear in any similar form in the book itself, and combining that source-text discrepancy with other stylistic AI signs in that very same excerpt and excerpts surrounding it gives an indication that much of the article's text and sourcing is AI-generated.
    The excerpt The continuity of a lineage name therefore marked not only territorial rootedness but also the transmission of skills—script, education, recitation—that were prized in churches, courts, mosques, and that appear in late Ottoman and Mandate records for Palestinian towns. contains the following AI signs, just at a glance;
    1. negative contrast (not only [...] but also)
    2. em-dashes
    3. groups of three (twice! script, education, recitation [...] churches, courts, mosques
    That's four discrete AI-isms in a very short piece of text. Combined with the source-text discrepancy, I can guarantee with essentially 100% certainty that that particular passage is AI-generated.
    In the lede you have this excerpt: Families that could point to a tradition of learning, literacy, or religious service—Muslim families providing imams, judges, or caretakers of waqf property, and Christian families producing priests, catechists, or teachers in missionary and parish schools—were often accorded additional respect which shows three groups of three and em dashes
    And this excerpt: Older male relatives—fathers, paternal uncles, and grandfathers—traditionally speak for the family in matters of marriage, inheritance, and dispute resolution, but educated daughters and sons have increasingly played a role in managing documents, schooling decisions, and migration since the early 20th century. which again shows em-dashes and groups of three, as well as the common AI-ism focus on relevance/legacy in the form of the phrase 'increasingly played a role'
    All of the text i've pointed out above isn't present in the earliest edit I can find from post-November 2022 (when text-generation AI became commercially available), an edit from July 2023 contains none of this text, so it was all added after LLMs became commercially available.
    I could keep going; e.g., the Salha family section contains the excerpt The family has played a significant role in Palestinian political activism, education, and community development, with a group of three and "focus on importance" highlighted.
    I absolutely agree with you that there's no doubt sources available to create a fascinating article on Palestinian kinship systems; but this is not that article, and it'd be far more work trying to extract that article from within this one than it would be to start over with the sources. The vast majority of this article is atrociously-organised, unsourced, AI-generated slop, and I don't think the fact that we could hypothetically Ship of Theseus a much better article from the wreckage of this one (for essentially no benefit other than the fact the article could retain the same title and edit history) is a compelling reason for a 'keep' here.
    Given that you're evidently passionate about the subject, it might be worth you putting together a draft at Palestinian kinship or something similar so that we can nuke this article and put something better right back in its place. Athanelar (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there's a good possibility of some sentences being written by, or with the aid of, AI. In any case, to delete an article you need to identify one or more of the reasons for deletion. This article is on a highly notable topic and it has multiple relevant reliable sources even though they are not utilised properly. That's a high bar for deletion that cannot be overcome with evidence that the content has the need for a major cleanup or even a rewrite. Zerotalk 09:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and point 14 is "any other unencyclopedic content" which I think is certainly broad enough to include an article consisting mostly of unsourced trivia about individual Palestinian families and unverifiable AI-generated fluff.
    Again, sure, it could maybe be salvaged by a ground-up rewrite problem is; who's willing to do it? Are we better off leaving this dumpsterfire of an unencyclopedic article up for however long it takes for someone to undertake the massive project of improving it, or are we better off just getting rid of it until that same person comes along and creates the better article from scratch, which is what they'd have to do anyway?
    The article that you want this article to be, an article about kinship and family systems in Palestine, is essentially completely unrecognisable to what this article is now. Athanelar (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per Historyexpert2. Svartner (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the notability has been cemented by Zero. It is important to note that deletion is not cleanup and that deleting the article just because it is in a bad state is not a guideline, only an essay. an article's notability is not determined by its current state. I'd recommend to put a under construction tag on the article, then delete all the ai and unsourced text. User:Easternsaharareview this 17:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr I don't think it's valid here to argue that we should keep the article because "Palestinian family/clan structure and history" (as Zero put it) is a notable topic, because the article we have here isn't even about those things, it's a misnamed List of Palestinian families essentially.
    @Easternsahara My contention is essentially that the title of the article reflects potentially notable content, but the actual content currently present in the article has nothing to do with the suggested notable subject (Palestinian kinship/family units). The article as it stands isn't really about 'family in Palestine' (which is what Zero is suggesting is notable, which I agree with) but is instead mostly an unsourced, messy List of Palestinian families which is a completely different article concept.
    It's like if the article for American 'diner'-type restaurants was actually just a list with subsections for individual diners in the United States with spurious, unsourced claims to notability. That would no longer be an article about the diner as an institution.
    If the article is titled Notable thing but the body of the article is only tangentially related to that thing and is otherwise poorly-sourced, AI generated and dubiously encyclopedic, then saying 'we should retain the article because its subject is notable' is basically just arguing that we should retain the article because the title of the article alludes to a subject which is notable, which doesn't seem to make sense to me at all.
    This article isn't about Palestinian family structure at all. There's some lip service paid to it in the lede and the "Lineage traditions" section, but the AI generation issues I've pointed out above cast a cloud on the verifiability of that entire section such that all of the sources will need to be reviewed in-depth to confirm source-to-text accuracy anyway, so your 'keep' argument sounds to me to basically boil down to "we should keep this article because the title of the article vaguely alludes to the hypothetical existence of a completely different article based on something actually notable." To which I say, again, it'd be far less effort to delete this thing and make that article from scratch (with a better title like Family in Palestine or Palestinian kinship) than to try to extract that article from somewhere in the oily, murky depths of this one. Athanelar (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sufficiently notable and WP:NLIST is basically is the subject notable? If yes, then you can have a list about it. However, I do think it is sufficiently related to the topic of Palestinian families that it should be kept, though restructured. User:Easternsaharareview this 18:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say that the meat of the article, that is the part that is allegedly sourced, is primarily about Palestinian family culture, while the list is largely unsourced and filled with non-notable entries. But looking at the history of the article, going back to its early days, it looks like it has largely been a list for most of its existence. Looking at the list portion, it the opening paragraph contains a lot of links with no further information about them. So a list might be salvageable if we remove the red links and expand on the blue links. If we go down that route, it should probably be moved to List of Palestinian families. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Historyexpert2 Denninithan (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zero & EasternSahara. It is a notable topic. There are plenty of sources that can be used to develop it. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia with unsourced material that seems to be copied from elsewhere that have been around for 20 years (Levantine pottery comes to mind) and no one tries to delete the article, or even the incorrect material. Remove the AI text, pare it down to a stub even, with a Bibliography of good sources. But a badly written article is not a reason to nuke the article title. Tiamut (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article may need reworking, but the topic seems notable to me. I've seen the Palestinian "notables" be referenced frequently in sources - ex: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And the "notables" are just one aspect of the article... NHCLS (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, and fix; I am in two minds about this article, on one hand it looks as it is written by someone with zero knowledge about Palestinian families, (ie hardly any mention othe important families in the 19th century, like the Abdul-Hadis, the Tuqans , the Jarrars, (see Throne villages), the Ajamis, Husseini, Nashabishi in the Jerusalem area (look at the names appearing in Mayor of Jerusalem), zero info about the 18 century and Zahir al-Umar and his family, etc, etc.) While there is a lot of info about the totally insignificant Makhamra family, due to Yitzhak Ben-Zvi fascination with them.
Thanks to OP for finding a link to the excellent book by the brilliant, unfortunately late, de:Alexander Schölch
That the article needs a ton of work, does not mean that the article should be deleted, when the topic is important, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT; since this implicates WP:BLP, we need at least three good sources, no AI, and coherence. Ping me if you find and add better sources and clean up the ChatBot mess. Again, this is a BLP issue: the risk of a privacy or defamation lawsuit is high. Bearian (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a key source "Dictionary on Palestinian clans" (1271 pages), available in Arabic here. Tiamut (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you can find a few pages attesting to the importance and notability of the topic, as the hamula (extended family structure) was (& still does) influence power politics in Palestinian society. Tiamut (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here some notes on how the political upheaval disrupted this familial order, yet also conversely made maintaining family ties a form of resistance and solidarity with the struggle to liberate Palestine. Tiamut (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some discussion here too on the role of family and clan networks in the revolt of 1936. All of these subjects can be covered through the use of reliable sources. What the article currently is, is not a reflection of what it should be or will be once it is worked on. Tiamut (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Palestinian clans: Its better that this article be kept but calling it "Palestinian families" is such a bad decision. No idea why it was called this when virtually every equivalent uses "clans" instead, could very well be intentional erasure of identity like how "Palestinian in Israel" is called "Arab citizens of Israel" instead, unless the page is rewritten to talk about Palestinian families and diaspora and how that intersects. This page would be much better off listing clans like Barbakh clan, Abu Ziyad clan, Khanidak clan, Abu Werda clan, Al-Mujaida clan, Doghmush clan etc. instead since I can't find virtually any info about the clans, meanwhile Palestinian Bedouin has a much better organization of its info about clans. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 08:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Palestinian families have a wider clan they belong to (unlike Bedouins). Also the sources I provided just above your comment show one (& there are several others) that do discuss family in the wake of the Nakba. Titling it the way it is will allow discussion of all these things. Scope and structure can be determined on the talk page.Tiamut (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could call it Palestinian clans and families? I agree that the article should definitely be kept in some way, preferably with as wide a scope as possible to detail all the stuff you mentioned. Just needs to be organized in a more consistent way ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:25, 17 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]
Thank you for your support. I do think that is plausible and will refer you to WP:CHEAP. Specifically: while the word combination is on the complex end, the increased interest should offset that versus your random dude. It is easily conceivable how the redirect would do the public a service and drive us traffic, plus there is the additional PRESERVE advantage of redirect. gidonb (talk) 17:15, 10 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)
Strong keep - Per WP:CONSPLIT, the information covered in this article merits its own page. All the other proposed pages for merges or the pages that purportedly cover the same subjects do so from a macro perspective, therefore, having a split new page (such as this one) elaborating on what is covered there is rational. There is no case to be made for this page to be a WP:POVFORK, as it only covers information in-depth and not from an alternate POV. As for the argument that this is a case of WP:CFORK, I would like to point out that it is still not a WP:RFORK and therefore is acceptable based on the reasoning I provided above. Kvinnen (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it still falls under WP:NOPAGE, especially as it is just a list of incidents that wouldn't even pass WP:NLIST. After all, there are only 4 listings and a short lead. User:Easternsaharareview this 22:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rather than closing this as "no consensus" (which will please nobody), I'd like to explore the compromise solution of merging or redirecting instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging doesn't seem like quite the good idea. Right now, this is basically a list with a lead and 4 entrees. If you go to WP:FLC or look at basically any WP:FL promoted after 2020, you'll see that they have leads that are a comparable size, most are bigger in fact. So clearly, this is a list right? Okay, then we need to apply the WP:NLIST criteria. This topic isn't notable because there are only 4 people in the list, WP:NOPAGE also applies. So where should this be merged into? List of sexual violence victims doesn't exist. The Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment of hostages may be able to accomodate these, but there is only 1 source that isn't about a specific case of sexual violence. If we were to all 4 of the individuals, that'd be WP:EXAMPLECRUFT in an article that is already quite big. So, if what you mean by merging is to simply redirect the article to the Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment of hostages and make a mention using the one source that mentions in passing, then sure that can be viable. However, as I have explained, anything more would be foolish. User:Easternsaharareview this 20:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and procedural problem with merge/redirect suggestion - I would be open to @Qhairun's merge proposal, but as explained therein, the name of the combined article would need to be changed. I don't think it's appropriate for a discussion on just one article's talk page to result in a merge and a change in the name of another article. A notice and opportunity to comment would need to be held first on the other article's talk page. Accordingly, the appropriate option is to keep. (I could expand on the reasons to keep, but I've focused on the admin request for reactions to the merge proposal -- redirecting, which in this case is functionally equivalent to deleting this page, makes even less sense in this situation if the page redirected to doesn't have its title changed.) Coining (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to easily meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV a quick search revealed many reliable sources that are covering this phenomenon that are not listed on the page but still demonstrate notability. Here is one from the BBC, CNN, Reuters, NBC, and there seem to be many more examples to be found upon further examination. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC, CNN and NBC articles are news coverage of a report which is already included on the main page, also has its own page, and contextualizes it as part of what began on October 7, as the cited articles make clear. The Reuters piece is news coverage of Rom Braslavski's testimony that is already included on the main page, this page, and also has its own page. This is all duplicated content. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voted delete, but am also happy with merging any content that is not already at the target pages as compromise per the suggestion of Ritchie333. In terms of the title, it can be incorporated into "Gaza war hostage crisis" as a new section, as "sexual and gender-based violence", and the main page's title can be changed to include "against Israelis since October 7". Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems straightforward? One article covers the sexual violence during the October 7 attacks in Israel and this article covers sexual violence from October 8 and thereafter in Gaza. Straightforward case of MECE. These events have been covered distinctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems arbitrary to divide by dates when there is no WP:SIZE issue. Do we have a separate article on the Gaza war hostage crisis separated by different dates. VR (Please ping on reply) 06:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reviewing the page I really don't see a solid reason for it to stand on its own. It's the same content already in the parent article, just copied over. There doesn't seem to be enough independent material to justify a separate entry. This really belongs within the broader article where the context already exists. On top of that, the page leans heavily on repeating individual testimonies, which the main article already summarizes with better balance. Tashmetu (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#In captivity in Gaza per WP:NOPAGE. Three out of four witnesses' testimonies are already there and duplicate content present in this article. The editor who created this article initially added the content there and after created a standalone page that is up for deletion here. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#In captivity in Gaza per WP:NOPAGE 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There's a such a realible sources likes: BBC, The Guardian, CNN and etc. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 15:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That GNG and SIGCOV are met doesn't preclude an article from being merged, or it doesn't mean one isn't a fork of another.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if there is forkiness to this, the forked content should be on this article, not the other article(s). The sexual violence against hostages is a completely different topic from the sexual violence against October 7 victims. This is also distinct from other elements of the treatment of hostages. If anything, these all need to be expanded not consolidated.← Metallurgist (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how sexual violence against Israelis in Gaza is any different from sexual violence against Israelis captured and raped on Oct 7? The main difference is the date. The war crimes against hostages are simply a continuation of the Oct 7 crimes.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - After reviewing the article and discussion I have to agree it is best to delete and merge. The article is mainly a list of testimonies by four people, who also have their own pages. Then there are two more pages on sexual violence and the hostages specifically. Having the same content across three pages already and adding a fourth is unnecessary. It is best to retain in the hostages and main sexual violence page. Ismeiri (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no consensus. As predicted, another week of discussion has not brought us any closer to an agreed upon outcome with opinions still divided between keeping, deleting, and an ATD. This isn't going to change by dragging the conversation out. The community is evenly divided on this.4meter4 (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with @4meter4 and this being commented out now twice.
    Close as no consensus Iljhgtn (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The !vote count is close (28 delete/merge vs. 26 keep by my count), but the strength and policy-based nature of arguments is meant to determine the result of a discussion like this (per WP:NOTVOTE), and I hope the closer keeps that in mind when reviewing. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the controversial nature of the topic, anything other than a no consensus close could be viewed as partisan in this case. There are several WP:NOPAGE arguments being made here which indicates the topic does in fact pass GNG, but editorially editors wish to cover the topic within other pages. Essentially this boils down to a content dispute, rather than a notability issue. AFD isn't the best forum to mitigate content disputes of this nature, particularly when there isn't a clear consensus. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 8. (edit | history)
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget all
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Palestine&oldid=1328127302"