Nir Yitzhak massacre: All four sources provided by user:Homerethegreat in the previous discussion do not include any mention of a "Nir Yitzhak massacre", but rather just discuss how part of the broader October 7 attack took place in Nir Yitzhak.  All sources in the article likewise discuss it as simply a part of the larger October 7 attack.  Not a single one calls it a massacre or even singles out Nir Yitzhak.  At the bare minimum this needs to be moved to Nir Yitzhak attack .  But even that is tough to justify on the merit of the sources.  Best to merge into 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel or delete.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 15:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - previous AfD was closed as Keep less than a month ago.  Clearly several notable and good sources.  WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 17:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's strange to re-launch the deletion of an article that was maintained on November 26.. .  Does this article bother anyone??? also against the merger proposal...  Sg7438 ( talk ) 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : It's a clear WP:GNG (BBC, Times of Israel, New York Times, Jerusalem Post, Vatican news and many more).  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 18:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a single one of the sources on the page mentions or even implies a "Nir Yitzhak massacre".  Just because there are sources there doesn't mean it's notable.  Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:COMMONNAME none of the sources there support this as a standalone article.  Please limit your reasoning to actual Wikipedia policies, not to your feelings about the matter.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are trying to delete with an invalid reason and not to rename.  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The options are keep, merge, delete.  No sources refer to this as a distinct event.  It is thus WP:OR to have a standalone article on it.  Information you think should be kept should be merged into the parent article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel .  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You had the option to start a move or merge proposal but instead you proposed a deletion.  Even though the last AFD was closed keep a month ago.  Andre 🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep meets GNG, there should be a moratorium on further AFDs of similar articles and user warned for tendentious pointy nominations Andre 🚐 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See my comment above.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't reply to every comment.  That's WP:BLUDGEONing .  Andre 🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't understand why this is back after less than a month; regardless, I still don't see the need for an article on every attack that ever happens in this or the war in Ukraine.   They occur, but that's the nature of war.  The news cycle will cover hundreds of similar attacks for as long as the conflicts happen.  This doesn't seem particularly notable amongst the long list of battles.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of articles on battles and massacres during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  [8] [9] [10] Hence the opposite question is more relevant: why would such SPINOFFs not be allowed once the casualties are Israeli, be AfDd already for a second time over a very short time span, and still receive two rare supportive opinions?  gidonb ( talk ) 14:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - changing my stance to Speedy Keep.  previous AfD was closed as Keep less than a month ago.  Clearly several notable and good sources.  WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See my comment above.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't reply to every comment.  That's WP:BLUDGEONing .  Andre 🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  Recent AfD closed as keep; No arguments were given to justify deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy .  At most this is a rename proposal.  There was significant coverage of this battle as an independent event in reliable sources.  By the way, according to Wikipedia:Notability , 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material'.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  "Not a single source refers to a "Nir Yitzhak massacre"." - did whoever said do looked into the sources?  They all related directly to the Nir Yitzhak massacre.  Agmonsnir ( talk ) 10:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A significant event and covered in many sources in many places.  Eladkarmel ( talk ) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid SPINOFF in terms of notability, length, uniqueness.  I had just expressed this opinion.  Why was it nominated again right after it was kept by community consensus?  gidonb ( talk ) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Significant and covered by many sources.   And not clear what has changed since the previous AfD which determined to keep it.  Dovidroth ( talk ) 07:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources in the article show this meets GNG.  Nothing has changed since the last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nir Yitzhak massacre which closed only 30 days ago; closer should consider the results of this closed AfD.  // Timothy :: talk 07:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [Once again I’ll be using the template from a previous similar AfD} I’d firstly like to point out to the OP that they are making these several AfD’s they have raised difficult for themselves and for those those who respond by combining a move and/or an AfD. It seems that the OP is of the opinion that these articles should not include "massacre" in their names. This is a valid opinion which should be tested by a move request. Mixing up a move and a delete request only makes it complicated to respond. Based on that I’m not going to address the naming issue as that belongs to a rename Move not an AfD. My !vote on the previous AfD was " Keep per notability comments of Homerthegreat, and my previous comments on similar articles: notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge of the combat. If any civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties. I do think the article can do with some additional referencing and copy editing, so I’ll add it to my to-do."  I still believe that. The article itself has sufficient sources for notability, but the are jumbled up and not fully utilized in the text to provide a broader view of the attack. Unfortunately I did not notice that the AfD had closed as keep, otherwise I would have done the updating I mentioned. As per my previous !vote I continue to believe that the subject worthy of if it’s own article: The determinant of notability is wide coverage in reliable resources. The sources in the current article are probably sufficient for this, but as I said previously, more can be added and the article written more broadly to properly utilize the resources. But Homerethegreat ’s resources and others I found during my superficial search clearly support notability (see below). in terms of POV if the source is RS it’s bias should be determined by consensus on an item-by-item, article-by-article basis. If bias exists it also doesn’t mean discarding a resource, it’s substance should be reported in neutral wiki voice and balanced by other resources as appropriate. Homerthegreat’s sources: The economic damage done to industrial plant in Nir Yitzchak The names of the nine civilians kidnapped or missing from Nir Yitzchak Couple from Nir Yitzchak who refused to be taken to Gaza and were eventually allowed to stay by the militants Five minute Video interview of defenders of Nir Yitzchak, including security camera footage of the militants, and discussion of deaths. Detail on how attack unfolded. Discussion of attack, killings and those kidnapped from Nir Yitzchak. Doesn’t mention Nir Yitzchak, but does discuss peace activists taken from Holit, and Netiv HaAsara the other AfDs so can be added to their sources Same story as above Re couple who refused to be kidnapped from different source. Message from Nir Yitzhak that militants still inside at 14:15 7/10/23 More details of how the attack on Nir Yitzchak unfolded and deaths Instead of listing the resources I found (You can AGF that I’ll list them if I update a kept article) I turned them into the following table for inclusion in the article. All cells of the table are supported by either Homerthegreats’s sources or about 3 others I found. This table would form part of an aftermath/deaths/captives section. The resources have further information around the table which would fill out the rest of the body. Deaths and Abductees Name Age Gender After Attack Current (25/12/23) Ofek Arazi 28 Male Killed 7/10/23 - Yaron Shahar 51 Male Killed 7/10/23 - Ofir Melmam (IDF) 21 Male Killed 7/10/23 - Boaz Avraham 61 Male Captive ? Lior Rudaif 61 Male Captive ? Tal Chaimi 41 Male Captive Killed 7/10/23. Body in Gaza Oren Goldin 33 Male Captive killed 7/10/23 Clara Marman 62 Female Captive Released 28/11/23 (Norberto) Louis Har (Clara’s partner) 70 Male Captive ? Fernando Marman (Clara’s brother) 60 Male Captive ? Gabriela Leimberg (Clara’s sister) 59 Female Captive Released 28/11/23 Mia Leimberg (Clara’s niece) 17 Female Captive Released 28/11/23 Unnamed militants ("dozens") - - ? ? The Leimberg family dog, Bella, was with Mia during her captivity and was released with her. Her mother runs a home for Arab and Jewish low functioning autistic children. As I have with a couple of articles, if the  decision is keep I will investigate resources in depth and use them to wikify the articles. Happy editing. Ayenaee ( talk ) 09:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well done for the thorough research :).  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 17:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are sufficient sources which portray itsnotability.  Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 14:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above as well as previous discussion.  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 17:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IP user, please revert your comments.  I don’t agree with the OP‘s opinion but they have a right (by the same first amendment you quote - which doesn’t apply here) to raise them in ways sanctioned by Wikipedia, which they have done.  We then discuss our conflicting opinions politely and come to a consensus (which is the point of the first amendment - free debate to resolve differences).  Your ad hominem attack on the OP who is acting in good faith is totally inappropriate and can be sanctioned in terms of WP:No personal attacks .  If you don’t self revert these comments, I will take the comments to WP:AN/I where I’m sure an administrator will remove them and sanction you.  I will copy this message to your talk page as well.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For completeness: It is appropriate and encouraged to list your biases as the OP has done on their user page.  No the site you quote would definitely not be an unbiased reliable source usable on wikipedia.  It is a site created to inflame emotions rather than restore peace.  It is also highly disrespectful to the dead (especially under the laws for respecting the dead in both Judaism and Islam) to use picture and videos of them in the way the site does.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The IP user responded to my message on their talk page and self-reverted their comments.  So I’ll consider the matter closed from their side.  I will however request RevDel as the comments and especially the source linked are not appropriate to remain in Wikipedia history.  I’ll let the administrator decide what do with my comments which are now hanging without a referent.  I’m sorry that this happened Dylanvt .  Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Everything rev del’d.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn’t actually manage to see what they wrote before it was stricken, so thank you for your diligence in resolving this right away.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 22:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep!!! As per Marokwitz, Gidonb, Homerthegreat and others GidiD ( talk ) 15:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Since this article is frequently nominated, I suggest setting a period during which it cannot be renominated.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (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: keep