Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

Avraham Sinai

Avraham Sinai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO, this article fails to establish independent, encyclopedic notability. A review of the sourcing shows that coverage of the subject was incredibly brief, completely transient, and has been almost entirely non-existent for over a decade. The few sources provided, with the newest one being a decade old, consist of a first-person piece written directly by the subject himself and local interview profiles that simply repeat his own unverified personal claims. There is a total lack of lasting, verifiable coverage from independent secondary sources. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Israel, and Lebanon. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser, the first source is about 2,000 words long. In light of Wikipedia:One hundred words, do you think that two thousand words constitutes "incredibly brief"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The source you cite is 12 years old. Its volume of text does not equal WP:SIGCOV because the content entirely lacks independent secondary verification. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, a subject's own statements are strictly disallowed from forming the primary basis of an article if they involve highly exceptional claims or claims about third parties that lack independent corroboration. Stripping away the direct quotes and the uncritical repetition of the subject's own anecdotes shows a complete absence of mainstream investigative journalism, public records, or anything validating these events. The sourcing is a localized and brief flurry of media attention from over a decade ago. A handful of old interviews repeating an unverified personal narrative fails the baseline criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Since when was "no new sources for a decade" an argument for deletion? Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  The issue is not the passage of time itself, but that the topic never achieved independent encyclopedic notability to begin with. WP:NOTTEMPORARY only protects topics that have received genuine, independent WP:SIGCOV. And WP:SUSTAINED explicitly states that a brief, transient burst of news coverage is not enough to establish encyclopedic notability. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as passing the GNG, probably even speedy as no deletion rationale was provided that complies with WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. For the state of sourcing of an article we have warning templates. gidonb (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:BEFORE, a deletion nomination is appropriate if a search is conducted and the resulting sources are determined to be insufficient. The core of this issue is that the real-world sources that do exist fail the fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. Piling up additional localized interviews and human-interest profiles from a decade ago does not magically satisfy WP:NEXIST when every single one of those sources acts as a passive conduit for unverified autobiographical claims. The policy explicitly states that once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive. The exhaustive search has been done, and has demonstrated that the real-world coverage is deficient under WP:ABOUTSELF. The recent attempt to add more sources is proof of this, as they are all deficient and suffer from these exact same problems. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - The nomination contains clear factual errors regarding the breadth, depth, and timeline of the article's sourcing. The article has just been significantly expanded to include multiple independent, high-quality secondary sources that completely satisfy WP:GNG:

1. Fails the "no coverage for a decade" claim: The subject has received sustained coverage from major national and international outlets well past his initial departure from Lebanon. This includes a major feature by the Times of Israel (2016), a long-form profile by Ynet News (2015), and an international broadcast package by i24News (2019).
2. Fails the "unverified personal claims" claim: The coverage is not purely first-person or local gossip. Major national secondary sources feature interviews with his direct IDF handler, Major General Yoav Mordechai, who officially verified Sinai's deep infiltration of Hezbollah and explicitly credited his intelligence with saving dozens of Israeli lives.
3. Independent Creative Work (Documentary Film): The subject is the central focus of the 2019 feature-length documentary film The Rabbi from Hezbollah (dir. Itamar Chen), which premiered at the DocAviv International Film Festival, broadcast nationally on Yes Docu, and featured on-camera commentary from his primary IDF Unit 504 intelligence handler, Tzahi Bareket.

Because multiple, independent, high-quality secondary sources over a prolonged period have now been integrated into the body text, this page clearly warrants a full keep. ArzLibnan (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Interesting, but I'm not sure how he's notable. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from using LLMs when !voting.

Your assertion that the article has been significantly expanded with independent, high-quality secondary sources that completely satisfy WP:GNG is directly refuted when these sources are analyzed. These are a cluster of localized features from years ago that serve as passive conduits for the subject's personal, unverified narrative. Both the Ynet and i24NEWS pieces explicitly frame themselves as vehicles to spread the subject's "amazing story" rather than objective secondary research. You are also mischaracterizing what his former handlers actually verify. While they appear in these media clips to confirm that the subject was a local field asset who provided information, neither of them verifies the extraordinary claims that form the core of this biography. No military official or public record corroborates that he was a deep-cover mole rising through the ranks of Hezbollah, nor do they verify the claim that his child was burned alive. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, a subject's own statements are strictly disallowed from forming the primary basis of an article when they involve highly exceptional claims or claims about third parties that lack independent corroboration. Regarding the 2019 documentary, the Ynet review explicitly notes the film is built entirely as a monologue based on the subject's own storytelling. A documentary that films a subject recounting his own unverified memories does not magically transform primary, first-person claims into independent secondary verification.

This recent padding is just a collection of more localized media uncritically repeating the exact same unverified personal narrative during a transient window a decade ago. It completely fails the baseline criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hamastan

Hamastan (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)

I am proposing the deletion of this article per WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICT and WP:POV. This is a non-neutral political neologism that has failed to achieve lasting adoption or widespread recognition. A review of the article's sources shows that coverage is entirely confined to a narrow window more than a decade old; there is zero contemporary usage in independent reliable sources to indicate the term ever transitioned into the mainstream lexicon. And the existing sources do not analyze the term as a distinct, encyclopedic concept. Instead, they consist of passing mentions tracking linguistic trends, localized Israeli military briefing terminology, and a collection of opinion pieces using the word as a transient, pejorative catchphrase alongside "Fatahland". Some of the sources are dead or don't even mention the term at all. Because long-term notability was never established, the article acts as a coatrack for an obsolete political insult and cannot be expanded past a basic dictionary definition. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. A quick search affirms nom's rationale. While the term appears to get occasional usage in Israeli political discourse, that only underlines the point on neutrality, and NOTDICT applies. —BrechtBro (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The issues raised by the OP were addressed in the previous AFD, with no indication that any underlying facts have substantively changed. The term is in significant usage from reliable sources ranging from the New York Times, to the Guardian, to a variety of Israeli, US, and international media. OP in fact identifies several legitimate usages of the term in the deletion nom, which leads me to believe the deletion rationale is substantively "I don't like it." The argument that "long-term notability was never established" is a red herring; notability is presumed with significant coverage in reliable sources (which there is); the GNG does not require ongoing "long-term" notability; and notability guidelines do not apply to the content of articles anyway per WP:NOTABILITY. The argument that the article "acts as a coatrack" fundamentally misunderstands what a coatrack is -- an article that has large amounts of unrelated content attached to it. That is not applicable here. The argument that it "cannot be expanded past a basic dictionary definition" does not appear to be supported by the article's content, which -- while it could be expanded further in this regard -- does go into examples of the phrase in usage and it's analogies to Fatah/Fatahland. This goes beyond "a basic dictionary definition." The perjorative nature of a term does not make coverage of that term inherently non-neutral; neutrality (NPOV) means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What significant viewpoint are we excluding? None. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree regarding the previous AFD, 17 years ago. WP:NOTNEO states, To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). The only source in the article that discuses, rather than uses it, is the NYT, and that is very brief, not coming close to sigcov. By this standard, the nominator's rationale for the previous AFD was correctly argued and not addressed in the keep votes at the time. In fact, only one !keep vote in that discussion claims that the sourcing is adequate, and rather abstractly, saying only "multiple sources discussing the term indicates that the term is notable."

NOTNEO continues, An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. This describes the vast majority of the content in this article to a T. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, 17 years ago the sourcing wasn't as good as it is now. That's hardly a surprise. However, you're conflating two independent, separate elements here. SigCov is an element of the GNG, not a requirement for what constitutes a neologism or not, which (per the link you provided) merely requires citing what sources say. It does not require this to be done by multiple sources (that is a GNG requirement, not a WP:NOT requirement); but notwithstanding it certainly *is* discussed by multiple sources beyond just the NY Times. See, e.g. , , etc. These sources are discussing the geopolitical context in which the term applies -- that's sufficient to meet the bar of "cite what reliable secondary sources say about the...concept". There really isn't any basis to the argument that our usage here is merely a dictionary definition. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No, the sourcing of the article is not significantly better than it was 17 years ago, which part of the problem. Also, the sources you link do not do what you describe. The Atlantic piece is a short blog entry,archived here which only uses the term as a title, while the term appears three times in the SWP piece (once in title, once in a section heading, once in the body), never discussing the term or concept itself. They use the term, they are not about the term. The NYT piece gives it half a sentence in a 5 graf piece on the -stan ending, hardly enough to justify an article, or which to base most of the claims in the article. —BrechtBro (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't fathom how you're getting that either of those sources never discuss the concept -- both are quite literally solely about the concept itself. They identify the term "Hamas-stan" or "Hamastan", and then go on to discuss the concept. The fact that the subsequent discussion does not repeatedly reuse the term sufficiently for your tastes does not make the content any less about the concept. Similarly, the fact that our article should be expanded beyond simply the linguistics and the parallel with Fatahland doesn't mean that it is a "basic dictionary definition" nor that it "cannot be expanded past" what it is. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Both pieces are about Hamas coming to power in the Gaza strip, they do not discuss the concept of "Hamastan," but use the term to refer to Hamas in government, which is covered at Gaza Strip under Hamas. The subject of this article is the "pejorative neologism," not the concept of Hamas governance itself. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The "pejorative neologism" is quite literally about the concept of Hamas governance itself. The lede literally says "The term Hamastan generally relates to the Hamas administration of Gaza." Almost the entire linguistic history section is examples of it being used in the context of Hamas governance of Gaza. See, e.g. . In a conversation with al-Zahar in September 2005, Kevin Peraino, a reporter for the magazine, noted that Israeli officials were warning that after their withdrawal, Gaza would essentially become 'Hamastan'. Al-Zahar responded, "It should be 'Hamastan'. Why not? We are not corrupt. We serve the lower classes. We protect our land. It should be Hamastan!'"[9] That is not an argument that the land should be physically named "Hamastan" after the neologism -- Al-Zahar is explicitly referencing Hamas governance of Gaza in the absence of the Israelis. How is this at all unclear? The concept of the land as an independant government, i.e. an ethno "-stan" is the point. That is different than Gaza Strip under Hamas, though subtly so. In any event, I believe I've made my argument; I disagree with the two of you. Not particularly interested in continuing to repeat myself further, so I'm going to end my participation here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You can excuse the previous AfD outcome by arguing that 17 years ago the sourcing wasn't as good as it is now but the actual development of the page directly refutes this. If you check the diff between that AfD and the current live version today the article has barely changed, meaning the fundamental policy concerns raised nearly two decades ago were never actually addressed. Per WP:NOTNEO, we require secondary sources about the term, not just sources using it as a rhetorical label. Its complete failure to gain lasting, mainstream adoption over the last 17 years proves that it does not warrant an independent article. Paprikaiser (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

2011 Tel Aviv truck attack

2011 Tel Aviv truck attack (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:LASTING, and the coverage of the event is only nation-wide, and it does not have critical coverage, so it also fails WP:NEVENT in that regard. Zalaraz (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• keep there was international coverage , including 5 years after the fact . the article should be expanded not deleted. Rainsage (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Wall Street Journal article just mentions the events off-handedly in one paragraph, it is not comparing or contrasting in any significant way. The information we could add from this news article to this article is just "The event was compared to other similar truck-related attacks by Wall Street Journal". The NYT article is also not WP:SIGCOV since it only mentions the event in passing. The broader effects on Israeli society are connected to the Second Intifada, and not this attack. Thus, this event does indeed fail WP:LASTING, since WP:LASTING only counts WP:SIGCOV. As WP:LASTING says, "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." This clearly has not been the case here. Two mentions in two years, even if they were WP:SIGCOV, don't automatically establish long term notability for events. Zalaraz (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

merge updating my opinion per gidonb and Pbritti. it looks like most of the encyclopedic information about this event is already included in 2011 Nakba Day, so this article can be merged there. Rainsage (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• keep There are other articles from Israeli and world press, not only about the actual event but also about the indictment of the perpetrator. A few more examples: https://stljewishlight.org/world-news/arab-israeli-truck-driver-found-guilty-of-terror-attack/), https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/15/One-killed-in-Tel-Aviv-attack/30831305460710/, https://www.jta.org/2011/05/16/israel/with-border-breaches-has-the-arab-spring-reached-israel, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4267802/, https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-1000645201. More notably, this event also discussed in the context of worldwide threats of the use of trucks (and other rammers) on security. lynngol (talk) 21 June 2026 (UTC)

i can't find the attack mentioned in PMC4267802; can you share the quote that mentions it? Rainsage (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It still is not notable unless it has gotten coverage outside of the event, and these are just sources from 2011. Zalaraz (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of sources and absolutely no concern with LASTING. That said, the article is short. If this can be completely included somewhere I would consider. Default should be keep though. gidonb (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on what's available and to avoid feeding our critics. The minimum effort before nomination is to look for news articles. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  You shouldn't assume that someone didn't do a WP:BEFORE without any evidence to back it up. Also, some people possibly being offended by the deletion of this page is not a good reason to keep it. R3YBOl (🌲) 21:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to have more than enough sources to be notable, including international sources and sources that analyse the attack (like the JTA and NYT articles listed above). NHCLS (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. There is sourcing to verify that the event occurred, but not enough to justify a standalone article. Most of the sources are short reports from 2011 describing the attack or routine developments in the resulting criminal case. The two later articles do not provide WP:SIGCOV of this event and merely list or briefly reference it when discussing vehicle attacks more generally. That is insufficient under WP:LASTING, which looks for continued substantial treatment rather than isolated retrospective mentions. Also uses WP:CONTENTIOUS words. Dualpendel (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: The sourcing speaks to this being sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopedic coverage. However, I think LASTING does present a fairly high hurdle for a small-scale attack to clear. Given that this attack was part of a series of similar ramming attacks during a defined period in the late 2000s and early 2010s, a list of such attacks might be a more suitable place for coverage. However, in the absence of such a list, retention seems preferable. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS rather than an event with demonstrated encyclopaedic significance. Coverage of the attack, inducement, and conviction belongs to one finite sequence of routine news reporting. The later WSJ and NYT references are not substantial enough to cure the absence of lasting coverage, and the broader significance discussed in those articles concerns vehicle-ramming attacks or Israeli security generally, not this incident specifically. The article consequently fails WP:NEVENT and WP:LASTING. R3YBOl (🌲) 21:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – There is a conflation of the number and international reach of contemporary reports with event notability by those voting to keep. The sources outside of the initial period of the attack do not analyze the attack's particular effects, historical importance, or wider significance. WP:NEVENT requires more than an initial burst of coverage. A separate article is unwarranted because the topic has limited encyclopedic content and the event has not become a recurring case study in reliable sources. Accesscrawl (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Completely failed to have any WP:LASTING impact. Segaton (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Rainsage and Bearian. —Biosketch (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete while the event is verifiable, it lacks the independent, enduring significance required by WP:NEVENT. The international sources cited to argue for WP:LASTING only mention the attack in passing or as a data point in a list of similar incidents. Routine breaking news coverage from 2011 followed by sporadic, trivial mentions does not satisfy WP:NEVENT or prove WP:SIGCOV. Per Rainsage, the encyclopedic context of this event is already integrated into the 2011 Nakba Day article. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Delet Haksamim

Delet Haksamim (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)

Completely unsourced since 2015, with no indication of passing GNG. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Israel. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep since meeting the GNG. Sources are only one click away. gidonb (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Exactly how does it meet GNG? If sources are "one click away," find some. Make your case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Apartheid-Free Communities

Apartheid-Free Communities (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)

I propose merging to Israeli apartheid because this has insufficient notability as a stand-alone topic. It is related to the proposed target, and likely worthy of mentioning there, but it fails WP:GNG on its own. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Palestine, and Vermont. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

support per nom Rainsage (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Daask (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Support refs arent great for establishing stand-alone notability User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect. As above, only it is uncertain that anything needs merging. Are we sure we want to throw this at the merge team? gidonb (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The level of detail here is off-topic for Israeli apartheid, while there significant coverage of the political debate in Vermont over this. (also covered in the Free Press) as well as in Brampton, Ontario. There is also tons of coverage of the similiarly-named Apartheid Free Zone movement, which is part of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (and not yet covered there), but as this is an independent campaign convened by the American Friends Service Committee, BDS is also not an appropriate merge target. This article should be kept, and it can be improved, expanded and expanded in scope to cover the entire anti-Zionist "Apartheid Free" movement. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Erica Spatz

Erica Spatz (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)

Does not meet WP:N including WP:PROF including WP:NACADEMIC. Is an associate professor - not even recognized by employer to be a full professor - does not have significant coverage separate from her employer that is promotional and fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability. Is clearly not notable. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, Israel, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It is true that is unusual to have articles on an associate professor — even being an assoc. prof. at Yale doesn't mean notability. However, I think that not even recognized by employer to be a full professor is a little harsh. We do indeed have articles on associate professors who have had a significant research impact. There is some significant coverage of the subject , so I disagree that the subject is clearly not notable, but there is only little else in terms of significant secondary coverage outside of that article, so it seems WP:TOOSOON. Jay-GH 06:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep h-index is decent . ~2026-36151-63 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Chaim Gingold

Chaim Gingold (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)

I propose redirecting to Spore (2008 video game) because the article fails WP:NBIO, the person has not received independent significant coverage in multiple sources. The book, Earth Primer, seems notable (reviews in Wired, Stuff.tv, Common Sense Media) but I don't think he writing the book and co-designing Spore meets requirements in WP:CREATIVE. Mika1h (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Israel, and West Virginia. Mika1h (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. In particular, the current article relies solely on one interview (a primary source) to support the position that he's involved with the academic side of gaming (per WP:PROF). Please ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

* Redirect for sure. He is owned by his game it seems. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

List of sacred places in Israel

List of sacred places in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I know Wikipedia lists don’t have to be exhaustive but this one seems a particular mess. Without any definition of what exactly “sacred” means it is very hard to scope and could be expanded enormously but to very little purpose. I don’t object to draftifying if anyone wants to work on it but the creator has been blocked for vandalism and if there is a viable topic here, a clean start might make more sense. Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA. – The Grid (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with Mccapra. Lynngol (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep- the article does need a lot of re-organization, but there is an immense body of independent secondary and academic sourcing on this exact topic to easily clear WP:NLIST. To address WP:LISTCRITERIA, we must establish an inclusion criteria for "Sacred" , for eg, explicitly limited to sites formally designated as holy places by major religious authorities or explicitly listed under statutory regulatory frameworks. To satisfy WP:NPOV the list can be clearly divided by region, ensuring proper framing. MissBVCC (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Draftify I would be willing to work on this because it is an important topic. Coming up with a definition of sacred should be doable going off the three Abrahamic religions. There is potential for a strong topic here if the time is put in. But unless it's unfixable I err on the side of keeping information on this site. AadamentAardvark (talk)

Without a title/scope change, care would need to be taken to ensure it only contains locations in Israel proper i.e. within the green line. It currently includes some locations across the green line and it would be a straightforward NPOV violation for Wikipedia to describe those as 'in Israel' in wikivoice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. There are far more than sufficient sources to sustain this under NLIST. A huge kudos for the suggested work above. Can be done in the article, also without draftity. gidonb (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed with keep, but improving the list overall. There is a ton of reliable sourcing to justify this one as a standalone article. Cheers Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in Israel Aren't all religious buildings considered sacred? Dream Focus 00:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

All of them? Not that I know of. Do you have source a for that? From what I could find, there are 142 Jewish sacred places in Israel and the West Bank in the Israeli government list. I counted only 4 regular synagogues among these. The Western Wall area operates similarly in practice. One in 3,000 is very few among the estimated 15,000 synagogues in Israel. The list is for the most part gravesides and graveyards. Also some caves, a water tunnel. There is some variety yet a clear focus on what is widely considered sacred. Not synagogues. These only include some sacred objects. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)