Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus with the knowledge that this article might make a return trip to AFD in the future (I'm talking weeks or months, not hours). Please do not renominate this article soon as I don't expect anything to dramatically change from the current discussion and that would likely result in a procedural close.

Also, those editors seeking to Merge all or part of this article can start a discussion about this possibility on the article talk page and also raise the question on the talk page of the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article currently does not satisfy any of the five Notability guidelines, namely the presence of significant, independent and secondary reliable sources reporting on it. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: as not only an entirely non event, but also merely a public relations talking point for one side of a conflict and an instance of extreme POV/whitewashing. Unencyclopedic nonsense. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: as also explained on talk page it is from one sided viewpoint without neutral sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The point that whoever attempted to commit acts of terror, failed and then didn't comment on it has nothing to do here. Almost none of the articles on terrorist attacks has opinion of whoever commit acts of terror. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This deletion proposal is unusually weak in policy-based reasoning and fails to perform even a minimal Google search to find significant, independent and secondary sources that establish notability before nominating this article for deletion. I found these in less than 2 minutes. Even 2 or 3 of these are enough to meet the notability requirements for news events.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Furthermore, the event has enduring historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, proving women's capability to match men in battle.
 * Marokwitz (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's some news coverage on the tank crew as part of the extremely localised news cycle in Israel, yes. It's unclear how that fragment of local news coverage suddenly makes a random skirmish by an individual tank crew a notable event. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, particularly WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not true. Australia is not part of Israel. Belarus is not part of Israel. And etc. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it? But yeah, I'm sure there's some other coverage. But the question is of what? The Australian piece, as part of its analysis, notes that the spun story is part PR operation. But the topic here isn't shameless PR operations by the IDF, which certainly is a notable topic; it's the claim that some random firefight is individually notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed seeing "scraping the barrel" being mentioned in WP:GEOSCOPE and I also didn't see this about your argument regarding the Australian piece. However I do see sources that state that the event was notable as well as unique in history, that it's a first ever female tankers fight. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS it's clearly seen that the first information with analysis came up a few month after the actual event which at least means it was not an impulsive news. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, the "first female tank crew" fight part is just bollocks in the first place. There were plenty of female tanks crews in Russia as far back as WWII, so the claim to fame is ahistorical nonsense. China also has such crews. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point here. There were female tankers before. No one denied it. However. First, it's "all-women tank crew" and even your own source says it about Israel as well and not Russian or China. Second, such crew engaged in active fight and won. Third, if needed, in the Middle East. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * False: This article states, "Russia unveiled its first-ever female tank crew in the 2019 Army Games hosted for international armies." It does not mention that an "all-female tank crew" was ever deployed in battle. Did you even read this source? Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The point remains that female tank crews of various nationalities have existed for years, including in Syria's 800-strong female battalion (also promoted for propaganda reasons). Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did mention before that such formations were present. But were they also the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, lasting for 17 hours? With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk)
 * I'm not sure when Israel became definitively "the West" ... They're in the Eurovision song contest, sure, but ... Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A mix of feminism, a public relations war over the treatment of women, and Belarusian news sounds like great ingredients for a notable topic. Marokwitz (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pseudo-feminism. If the IDF had real feminism, its senior commanders might have listened to the female observers who reported Palestinian militants training to breach the wall. But regardless, feminist PR whitewashing remains a separate topic from the actual battle that is ostensibly the topic here ... the main claim to fame of which is an ahistorical and false one. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone might have run out of arguments and is trying to add to this discussion a point that is entirely unrealed to current discussion as well as based on Wikipeda editor's own opinion which was not covered by a reliable sources in relationship to the topic of the discussed article. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * indeed. JM (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Marokwitz (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AGAIN، WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:NOTNEWS Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again. The event was covered a month and a half after it has happened. And all of the events with the current war can be deleted with the same argument of those two rules. But they are not deleted. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One analysis piece a few weeks later ≠ WP:LASTING. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not one analysis piece and it's not a few weeks later. And it's the same as other current war articles. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it?What do you mean by this? Zanahary (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A google search proves what uou just referenced, five Israeli sources (not independent of the subject) and two mediocre sources. There is no significant coverage by RS for this topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you mind to clarify if The New York Sun is mediocre or Israeli source? With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk)
 * Seems like both. The New York Sun is owned by Algemeiner, an Israel-related newspaper. It is also here categorized as a tabloid.
 * Please sign at the end using ~ . And how does it fit to your original number of 5+2 and no more? I have easily shown that it's already 6+3 (if we count it as both). In addition, there are other sources mentioned in this discussion which increase the numbers. And other sources which were not yet mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From the article on the New York Sun: On November 2, 2021, The New York Sun was acquired by Dovid Efune, former CEO and editor-in-chief of the Algemeiner Journal. From the article on the Algemeiner Journal: The Algemeiner Journal, known informally as The Algemeiner, is a newspaper based in New York City that covers American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. It is widely read by Hasidic Jews. I don't think "This newspaper is owned by a person who used to run a Jewish newspaper and Jews are related to Israel" is a valid reason for disqualifying a source. JM (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NEVENT requires enduring notability beyond the recent news cycle, which you've failed to demonstrate. Furthermore, we can make up thousands of "first" like this, it doesn't mean every single one of them has enduring historical significance. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject is notable as this was the "first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, which lasted 17 hours" as well as "this was most likely the first time in history that a female armored unit participated in a war". It's obvious that The Australian Financial Review is not Israeli source, is reliable and is independent. Haarets is also reliable. As well as others. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per above, no and no. Russia had female tank crews in WWII - so no, Israeli media has made up a claim to fame without having first googled the claim. Pretty pathetic journalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia did not have all-female tank crews in WWII, which is what this article is about. Marokwitz (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Uganda did seven years ago, and it graduated 27 female tank personnel and 5 commanders this year. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quora.com?! C'mom... ... Once you make it a relable source like we can come back to it. Or when you make The Daily Mail the reliable source. And where in the second source it says that all-female tank crew was engaged in a battle? Have you read what was written? With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My response to that is below; this response was to Marokwitz's point, not yours. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You understood what I was talking about. All-female tank crews that participated in combat. Marokwitz (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to read what was written. Sources state that it was a first all female tanker crew that was engaged in active fight in Middle East and won. You haven't shown the counter argument to it. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So it's three caveats now is it? Female tank crew, Middle East and claim of victory against infantry? ... that's getting mighty specific. But beyond the bluster, Syria also had female tank crews that beat back rebels in 2015. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not three. Just one straight point without any caveats. Please read what was written above. And please read what experts have mentioned on it. If needed I can read for you. And I already read. And even if there are 10 caveats if others in reliable sauces believe that it's unique then it's unique. Even if a Wikipedia editor doesn't like it. And please do not cite unreliable sources. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. You may check it here: WP:DAILYMAIL . With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome to Google your own examples of non-uniqueness, including those in Syria. Obviously the daily mail didn't make up a military entity, and you can certainly Google that yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems you do not read what is written to you which makes the conversation harder, and now you send others to Google after you have failed to provide any data from there... With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can read just fine thank you, but if you'd like to keep asserting otherwise, we can solve this as hominem behavioural issue on your part at ANI. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we should be clear on the arguments which were mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong risk of WP:BOOMERANG JM (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per all keep-sayers above. Coverage is international. Haaretz is Israel's newspaper of record. No problem with a debate on widening the scope to the role of women combattants in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. gidonb (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Women in the Israel Defense Forces are already extant articles, so there are plenty of potential pages were a neutral and encyclopedic write up of something related to this could live. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why now you are trying to limit pages to cover Israel events. Have you seen the size of the article? It makes sence to have a separate article since it has separate notability and sufficient size. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. The first link is general; the second Israel-specific. On length: maybe the topic is just inflated and overwritten. The real art of editing is one of concision and brevity. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As an argument to try to delete this article you have mentioned "there are plenty of potential pages were a neutral and encyclopedic write up of something related to this could live". If it doesn't mean that you want to cover the current article on another page and use it as an excuse to delete this please explain what you have meant. Now you are trying to say that topic is allegedly inflated and I say that it's not. It's one wikipedia editor's opinion against another. All the content from the topic is from reliable sources. And even if the article was twice smaller we still have such article as independent from the other broader topics as it clearly shows separate notability. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it fails WP:NEVENT. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't fail WP:NEVENT. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, perfect! And this is a fine WP:SPINOFF. Then all is set to keep as is. Thank you. The alternative would be to have an article about this tank crew and on other women combattants in this war, i.e. a rename and widening of scope. That falls outside the AfD debate yet can be debated on the talk page. gidonb (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - not news, this is trivial material that will need sustained coverage to merit an article for an event.  nableezy  - 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What is not news and what is trivial? If you came here because of this and this and then clicked on my input please first check what was disused in this conversation above. TLDR: All of the articles about current war are not news, but they are not deleted; this topic had articles published more than 1.5 month after the event occurred so it was not just an immediate news; it covers the first ever all-female tankers fight after WW2 so not trivial. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You have made 32 edits to this page and are responsible for close to half its content. We know you want to keep the article. You can stop badgering people who disagree with you.  nableezy  - 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. What I am trying to understand is how my comments in your view are different from my colleague Iskandar323 other than my active participation in the creation of the article. And your count is not quite correct (we do not count fixing typos). I did 20 comments while Iskandar323 did 17 which is pretty similar. But now I'll step out and let others to comment as my point of view should be pretty clear now. With regards,  Oleg Y.  (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You have 32 edits (now 33) for about 10 kB of text, he has 17 for 5.5 kB of text. He should stop engaging as well though.  nableezy  - 17:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events,  and Military.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per @Marokwitz Homerethegreat (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Major points is notability as well as first-timeness as well as uniquness. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to Women in the Israel Defense Forces. As a standalone article, this fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG in general. It lacks any hint of lasting WP:EFFECT, sources lack WP:DEPTH, and the entire thing lacks WP:PERSISTENCE. It might have qualified as a nine-day wonder if the coverage has lasted another six days. This article appears to be an attempt to give the illusion of significance to a political stunt. Per NEVENT, political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories" and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable (emphasis in original). The just is no legitimate way to spin this into something worthy of an encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marokwitz. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not in encyclopedic domain, would make an excellent documentary but do not see any reason currently as to why this should be precisely on Wikipedia.  Pg 6475  TM 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with @Curbon7's suggestion.  Pg 6475  TM 23:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marokwitz. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Holit massacre. Holit massacre is currently a stub, and this is presumably a subpage despite being even longer than the parent article. Parts of it may also have to be rewritten so that it doesn't read like an advert, i.e. not taking the IDF's claims about this being "the first XYZ" at face value. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable topic, especially since it was composed of all-woman fighters.
 * बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as failing WP:NEVENT and being pretty one-sided propaganda. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 02:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. That was one of the most famous episodes during the attack by Hamas on Israel, and this is reflected in sources. Moreover, this is a unique case in the history of warfare. They made a history, My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, women served as tankers in many armies, even though this is usually an exception. For example, Aleksandra Samusenko was the only female tanker in the Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army, as our page says. However, I do not know any other episodes with an all-women tank crew, which would be as highly publicized as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SUSTAINED as I could find no evidence that this was picked up nationally. Also seems notable that major international news sources like the BBC and New York Times did not feature this event. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per various arguments above. JM (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: War propaganda, with nothing for notability. As other comments have explained, this is not the first group of this type, making this not terribly notable. Could be a brief sentence or two in an article about the war, nothing much else to be said. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG and therefore doesn't need to pass any SNG, however the sources clearly show this meets SNG as well (WP:GEOSCOPE and LASTING). Delete votes are just IDONTLIKEIT that ignores GNG. Source eval:


 * About the unit:, , []


 * About their role in the battle:, , , , , ,


 * Stopped at listing 10 sources, but there are more. The only arguement for deleting this is IDONTLIKEIT.
 * The event has lasting historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, the above sources indicate this clearly. The international level of coverage demonstrates this further.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I checked sources through Google, but found no any other notable (widely publicized) examples of all-female tank crews involved in active combat. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per reasons given by Makeandtoss.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - This had international coverage and is likely to be a precedent internationally. Dovidroth (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no international coverage if you looked the sources Shadow4dark (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Move: Move or rename it into "Battle of Holit". - UtoD 13:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the fight has occur somewhere between Holit and Sufa, not just in Holit. The expression "Battle of Holit" does not appear often, but when it does, it refers to Holit massacre, which is a different event. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: already covered at Women in the Israel Defense Forces. (See also Holit massacre and Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.) We need to be more critical of IDF claims about vague "firsts" (more generally, many claimed global firsts are repeatedly uncritical by press but are untrue). If the article is to stay, not much of its content could, such as the propaganda blockquotes, blow-by-blow descriptions of a minor fight or non-information like "Their last names have not been disclosed for privacy related security reasons". — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One journalist dug out, in connection to this fight, that there was only one all-women tank crew in Soviet forces during WWII (they were killed in combat in 1944), and surprisingly, at least one crew in Donetsk People's Republic. But very little is known about them. That was on YouTube, with photos . I think each of these unique tank crews would deserve a separate page if they had a significant coverage in RS, but only this page under discussion has such coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So this article should say what—"despite IDF claims that it was the first instance, at least two others are known"? Or we have to spell out the heavy lifting done by "in the West" within the claim? How can we write an article where notability is based on a widely repeated claim that is dubious or requires significant contextualisation missing from almost all sources? — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Very simple - per WP:V. We have many RS on the subject of this page. Hence, we use them. And, as usual, we just ignore everything that was not published in RS. I doubt that the YouTube record I cited is a great RS; it might be used, but it just as easily can be ignored. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable publications can be unreliable for particular facts in context. Here the specific articles are perfectly reliable to claim that the IDF's propaganda during warfare stated X. They are not reliable for a very bold historical claim about something being the "first" (which you have cast significant doubt on), whereas a modern war historian may be. An article can't be built on just military propaganda (if we have independent reactions to that propaganda or, after the war, a historical source about the role and context of the propaganda then it's a bit different). — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The YouTube presentation above is consistent with claims currently on this page, it just adds a few details. The page (and the cited source) says: "The young women were the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat lasting for 17 hours". I do not know why the source classified them as "West/Western" (rather than "East"), but Russia and DNR are definitely not the "West". I agree this East-West thing is subjective, but again if there are other RS about all-women tank crews, one can bring them to this page, no one will object. This is how WP suppose to work. No RS - no content. Note that Haaretz and other sources used on the page are RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I would certainly include the info about other all-women tank crews to this page, but I can not find it reliably sourced. The Youtube record probably is not good enough, although I have nothing against including it since it was produced by a well known independent journalist. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment A discussion opened before this one, Talk:All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023), appears to be still ongoing. Also the redirect target Holit massacre, mentioned in both discussions, has also been nominated for deletion. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per MVBW. Andre🚐 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per above  Abo Yemen ✉  12:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete -- insufficient reliable sources to establish notability & build an NPOV article. The article and its sources show that the story originates with the IDF ("according to the IDF", quotes from the IDF, etc) which is not sufficient for the encyclopedia. For example, the Haatetz source source says: "Composed of young women in their early 20s, the tank crews were the first Western women armored soldiers to go into active battle, according to the IDF." And so on. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: At the moment I'm not seeing a consensus here. It would be helpful to have additional input on whether the information here needs a standalone article (as opposed to being incorporated elsewhere) and whether the sources being presented are genuinely independent (several arguments state they are not). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marokwitz scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep - Not a very syrong case, merging might become consensual after things cool off, but for now notable enough for what it is, see Australian quite nuanced article (‘My Insta blew up’: Feminism and tank warfare in Israel, A. Patrick for The Australian Financial Review, Nov 27, 2023), quote: "It was probably the first time an all-female armoured sub-unit has fought in a war, according to Neil James, executive director of the Australia Defence Association, a pro-military lobby group." Not Israeli, not Jewish, not US, critical ("PR operation", other armies more integrated & less mysoginistic than IDF), but not denying the facts.

Last not least, 100% of the "delete" and "keep" supporters are of the involved I/P type; waiting for a cool-off seems the more so necessary. The war & its effects won't take a turn based on this. Arminden (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is notable enough to be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - the Australia and Belarus articles above are two GNG sources, which is barely hitting GNG but it's hitting GNG, and they meet WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. It's too soon to tell WP:LASTING; no prejudice to re-nom'ing some years down the road if LASTING isn't met. Merging to the Women in IDF article would overwhelm that article. Doesn't matter if they were actually the first at anything or if they're used for propaganda by their gov't or what they did in any battle... just matters that we have two independent international in depth sources covering them, and it's too soon to tell WP:LASTING. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.