Hamas most wanted playing cards: Seems like an excuse to make a list.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel .  Shaws username .  talk .  14:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Shaws username .  talk .  14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources.  Only a couple of the sources actually mention the cards - the vast majority of references are about the individual terrorists named and make no mention of the cards.  It therefore fails WP:NOTABILITY .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  14:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as fails SIGCOV.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 16:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definitely looks like significant coverage to me in those citations.  Probably we should have an overall article on cards like these used in various wars.  On a side note I was shocked that a deputy director in the ministry of health should be identified as a target to be killed, though I guess less than I should be consideing what has already happened there.  NadVolum ( talk ) 16:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's so many examples of SIGCOV from multiple RS in multiple countries, I'm wondering if a WP:BEFORE was done.  [27] [28] ( Ynet , Israeli national media outlet in both English and Hebrew), [29] ( Jerusalem Post , Israeli national media outlet), [30] ( Al Bawaba , Jordan), [31] (Arab World Press, London/Riyadh), [32] ( The Messenger , U.S.), [33] ( Israel Hayom (Hebrew)), [34] (Skynews Arabia, Arabic), [35] ( Al-Arabiya , Saudi), and on and on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg ( talk • contribs ) 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are there two different decks?  Those don't all seem to be covering the same deck...  From that coverage it appears that there is a government deck and that there is a "Christian cowboy" deck.  This page appears to only cover the first so coverage of the second (for example that J-Post article) doesn't count towards the notability of the first.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I reverted out the clearly irrelevant material about an alternate deck of cards but editor Longhornsg has editwarred it back in.  Closer, kindly take note.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 17:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, stop with the aspersions.  It's not WP:EDITWARRING .  This article is about decks of cards of Hamas leaders.  Alternate versions are of course relevant, as are song covers to the original, and other variations to originals.  Besides, it's one source of many.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The current article is about *a deck* not about decks.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the article currently has information about two distinct decks of cards featuring depictions of Hamas members.  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are literally five references in the article that aren't directly referencing the death of someone; they're the ones that need to be evaluated when deciding WP:SIGCOV , not the 19 others, referencing that someone was killed.  The Messenger source is just reporting on what was in the Ynet article, so there's only four actual sources.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources have been found covering this.  D r e a m Focus 16:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article presents 4 sources, 3 of them in Hebrew and 1 from an unreliable source, the Messenger (a site that shut down after 6 months in operation).  Where is AP, Reuters, NYT, BBC etcetera, any kind of serious source?  Selfstudier ( talk ) 17:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Messenger shut down because of business reasons, not the quality of its journalism.  A plague that has unfortunately afflicted much of the journalism industry [36] , [37] , [38] .  Additional sources are presented above and are all WP:NEWSORGS .  The language of a source does not affect its status as an RS.  Would it matter if many of the sources were in Arabic?  Of course not.  We are not limited to the AP, Reuters, NTY, and the BBC or any other sources.  Let's not move the goalposts for what constitutes an RS.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : So it's an "unofficial" deck, why does it need an article?  Sourcing barely mentions this "deck" and most are non-RS.  Newsweek and the like aren't RS.  Seems to be an odd synth of various bits of information, I don't see this as being used in any media.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Comment : Multiple independent sources about these decks.  Sure, the article could use some more info (who actually made the unofficial IDF deck? could use some more sources about the 12-card deck), but WP:NOTCLEANUP .  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) ; Edited, Withdrew 'keep' (forgot about WP:SUSTAINED ) 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 22:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This reminds me of the "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" article that was deleted recently.  Technically the playing cards have been described in news media (just as the article "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" was), but it's a flash in the pan, not WP:SUSTAINED coverage.  The majority of the page's 19 sources cover the death of someone depicted in a card but without mentioning the cards.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an easy pass of the GNG.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: The vast majority of the sourcing here is trivial in the extreme, and the few that do cover it more meaningfully are unimpressive with a view to establishing GNG for this topic as a subject of import for a global encyclopedia.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent and scope of extant sources that cover this article's subject would be helpful in bringing this closer to a consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions .  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the sourcing issue has been adequately resolved, and it provides value as a kind of before -after picture of the conflict.  FortunateSons ( talk ) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What has been resolved about sourcing?  Can WP:SUSTAINED be demonstrated?  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sourcing / notability is on point.  Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see a problem with this article's notability.  There is another one with a similar name, Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards that has been on Wikipedia for several years.  But maybe it is worth moving this article to "Most-wanted Hamas playing cards" to keep to the same format. -- Hazooyi ( talk ) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this is nothing, and the weak coverage shows it.  Not SIGCOV, not notable.  Zanahary ( talk ) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Reluctant relist.  I don't see a consensus here and when it comes down to a decision, I see editors whose AFD experience I respect on both sides of this discussion.  A source analysis would be helpful for whomever reviews this next.  Right now, there are plenty of opinions but it comes down to whether or not sources establish notability of this article subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , covered frequently in Hebrew like in [39] .  Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk ) 08:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Nothing has really changed here, we require significant and sustained coverage in English language sources and we haven't any such thing.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 12:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For clarity, significant coverage isn't determined by language .  But WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple reliable independent sources hasn't been demonstrated in any languages.  The link that חוקרת posted is already in the article.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 12:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, all else being equal, English sources are preferred merely for accessibility reasons, but not required.  When push comes to shove, foreign-language sources are just as valid in counting towards reliability or notability, and cannot be disregarded on the basis of language alone.  Please see WP:NONENG .  Left guide ( talk ) 16:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nevertheless, for this particular case, we have a total of 6 sources, 3 of which are in Hebrew (ie Israeli), 1 from the defunct Messenger, 1 from albawaba.com (Jordan) and an irrelevant one from the Jerusalem Post (Israeli) about a different deck of cards, hardly a stellar set of sources.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That only includes the sources presently in the article; I also see other sources shown in this discussion that should be given fair consideration per WP:NEXIST .  Whether a particular source is in or out of the article has no bearing on the topic's notability.  Left guide ( talk ) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you asserting that this article is notable based on those sources?  Selfstudier ( talk ) 17:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I haven't reviewed them in-depth, I am simply asserting that any real discussion about the topic's notability needs to address all of the sources available, and not only the ones in the article.  Left guide ( talk ) 17:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those include 3 already in the article and then 2 more Israeli source, an Arab blog established in 2023, and 2 Arabic sources in Arabic.  No sight nor sound of the sort of sourcing we usually see for our articles in this topic area.  The whole thing is just Israeli propaganda similar to Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards which at least had a modicum of sourcing but probably should be AfD'd as well.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, both about this article's non-notability and about the playing cards of Iraqi officers as well.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus