Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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


Israel

[edit]

Gaza Strip famine

[edit]
Gaza Strip famine (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)

The article discusses the risk of a potential future famine in the Gaza Strip. Reliable sources warn of the risk of famine, not an actual famine, so the subject fails the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:Notability. Unless reliable sources report that an actual famine materializes in Gaza, this material is better suited for the food and water section of Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), not a standalone article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination, the WP:SCOPE is given by the title and the first sentence "The population of the Gaza Strip is at high risk of famine as a result of Israeli airstrikes during the Israel–Hamas war and an Israeli blockade, including of basic essentials and humanitarian aid.[1][2][3] Furthermore, nominator themself states he article discusses the risk of a potential future famine in the Gaza Strip. Reliable sources warn of the risk of famine, not an actual famine. Notability is not even in question, it seems nominator objects to the article title, that needs an RM not an AfD, and there are already two failed attempts in that respect. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ridiculous nomination". What is wrong with you? You encouraged me to submit the AfD. Stonkaments (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that if you believed your own words, then you should do that. Of course, I didn't actually expect that you would but I am forever surprised by what editors do on WP. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I not believe the words that I write? WP:Assume good faith. It's patently absurd to describe the risk of an impending famine as the "Gaza Strip famine", in Wikivoice. Stonkaments (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already explained the WP:SCOPE, the article does not assert that there is a famine, just that there is a high risk of one. That doesn't mean the title is wrong provided that there are sourced references to famine (real or potential, doesn't matter) and there are indeed plentiful such references. Furthermore, the PM of Israel now has an arrest warrant out on him for using starvation as a weapon of war. The problem is you think the article title is a statement of fact, it isn't, it's just a title, which is not POV as long as there is appropriate sourcing discussing famine, which there is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GFISNOT means that editors should start with the belief that others are trying to improve Wikipedia, not that we have to assume that anyone believes what they're saying. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Knutson, Jacob (11 April 2024). "U.S. aid official says famine has begun in northern Gaza". Axios. Archived from the original on 12 April 2024. Retrieved 24 April 2024.
  2. ^ "The Guardian view on famine in Gaza: a human-made catastrophe". The Guardian. 19 March 2024. Archived from the original on 10 May 2024. Retrieved 22 March 2024.
  3. ^ "Imminent famine in northern Gaza is 'entirely man-made disaster': Guterres". UN News. 18 March 2024. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 3 April 2024.

Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology

[edit]
Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology (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 should have uploaded the article through AfD, because I was paid by the subject in the past (which I have disclosed it). Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IWI Galil Sniper

[edit]
IWI Galil Sniper (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 previously redirected the page to IMI Galil based on NPP guidelines, but the creator has expressed some concerns. I still think it’s just a variant of the Galil and doesn’t need its own page. WP:REDUNDANTFORK Charlie (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am the topic creator, and before I explain why this topic should be kept, I want to thank Charlie for initiating this AfD proposal to determine whether there is a consensus to delete this topic. Regarding this thread, the IWI Galil Sniper is based on the IMI Galil#Galil ARM variation which itself is a variation of the IMI Galil. The IMI Galil is a 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO assault rifle, whereas the IWI Galil Sniper serves a completely different combat role as a 7.62×51mm NATO sniper rifle. Since the IWI Galil Sniper fulfills a distinct role and is derived, not variant, as it has different weight, parts and combat role, there is encyclopedic value in having a dedicated topic for it, similar to the treatment in Galil Sniper[he], and that's why I translated it into the English Wikipedia, adhering to the guidelines outlined in WP:Translation (I'm also registered in WP:TRLA). IdanST (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there's an article on certain topic on he.wiki doesn’t mean we have to create one on en.wiki, as en.wiki might have different standards for article creation than he.wiki. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Da Drezner

[edit]
Erez Da Drezner (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 don't find any encyclopedic importance for this article, which telling about an anonymous deaf Israel person which haven't any significant things. He even haven't an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added standard information for an AfD nomination at the top TSventon (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and describes his other deeds.
The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not been nominated for deletion until today. --DgwTalk 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be nominated for deletion at any point that they are live on the main space. We see articles created in 2005 that are brought to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm on the fence a bit about this as the references are stocked full of non-reliable sources like Youtube and random blogspot domains. With that being said there's the kernel of a possibility that Da Dresner's work in Ukraine might reach the minimum bar for notability... except for WP:BLP1E. If his notability could be shown to extend to his TV work, other advocacy work or really anything other than one trip to Ukraine I might be persuaded. However the sources presently available in the article do not do this and I did not find anything really missing on a google search. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sixth place on a TV show and some charitable works after, but I don't really see notability. Sourcing is scant, i can only pull up articles about the trip to Ukraine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Big Brother (Israeli TV series) season 2#Housemates as an ATD, and a WP:TROUT for trying to argue non-notability in another project simply because an article for the subject hasn't been created on he.wiki. Also calling someone 'an anonymous...deaf person' is cruel and should never be a part of a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As things are going in ANI, there are enough evidences that this AfD has not been done in a good faith. I suggest to hold the Afd until archiving the discussion in ANI. If the article has to be deleted, please move it to User:Dorian Gray Wild/Erez Da Drezner until there is an additional activity of Da Drezner. DgwTalk 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you changing your !vote to draftifying the article? You understand that would mean deleting the article after the draft is taken? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not change my vote. The user who made this AfD has been one-way banned from any articles which I edited. If in the end of this discussion, the admin will decide to delete this article, calculating my "keep" vote and the one-way-ban which the user got, I ask the admin to move the article to my user space instead of deleting it. DgwTalk 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, my misunderstanding. However it wouldn't be nrormal to cancel an in-progress AfD just because the filer is under an i-ban put in place after filing. Three people who are not the filer have already provided feedback that should be considered without prejudice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Rosen

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Barak Rosen (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)

Fluff piece about non-notable businessperson. Cannot find any significant coverage of the article's subject, completely failing GNG. All sources in the article are about his company's acquisitions or incidental inclusion in lists of businesspeople. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Dan Leonard,
I have three big profile articles about Barak in Hebrew. Since he is Israeli, can I add them to the article? And will it suffice?
כבר לא שני מתווכים מרעננה: "הם רוצים להיות השחקנים הכי גדולים, רוזן מוכן להתאבד על עסקות" (דה מרקר)
https://www.themarker.com/realestate/2021-11-05/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/0000017f-e3c4-d9aa-afff-fbdcdc580000
הילדים הרעים של שוק הנדל"ן הכפילו את שוויים ב־2016 (כלכליסט)
https://www.calcalist.co.il/markets/articles/0,7340,L-3706754,00.html
הכל בכל מקום בבת אחת (כלכליסט)
https://newmedia.calcalist.co.il/magazine-12-05-22/m01.html
עידו כ.ש. (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources pass WP:SIGCOV then they might be acceptable; however, it's worth noting that an article on Rosen has been repeatedly deleted on the Hebrew Wikipedia and is now salted. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they do comply. And I’m aware that the Hebrew article was deleted before, but it was done years before most of the coverage about him was published, he also gained more reputation since. Moreover the articles were written very poorly, I believe that if they’ve written them properly that article would stay up. Many businessmen with much smaller significance have articles about them in addition to their company, so the only reason I can imagine Rosen’s article caught attention was the writing’s quality. I might invest in a more appropriate Hebrew article for him soon. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we really need to have a neutral review of sources brought to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a topic of Barak Rosen in Hebrew Wikipedia and this topic was deleted because there was no encyclopedic value. IdanST (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

[edit]
2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births (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 seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
    CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.
Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

[edit]
Tararam (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 unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

[edit]
Ilan Lukatch (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)

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:
1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him
2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988
3. Doesn’t mention him
4. Passing mention in a brief listing
5. Passing mention
6. Doesn’t mention him
7. Doesn’t mention him
8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)
9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source
10. No longer accessible but looks decent.
That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:48, 16 November 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.


Deletion review

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Images

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]

Requested Moves

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel&oldid=1259141435"