Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juhor ad-Dik ambush


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Juhor ad-Dik ambush

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

This article is just a recycling of Hamas propaganda, and consists solely of Hamas claims which have not been independently verified. Moreover, half of the sources are unreliable. Article fails both Notability and Verifiability. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. As it is, the sources don't really establish any enduring notability, and do in fact only seem to be reporting on unverified claims by Al-Qassam Brigades. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In what way are the claims made not notable? Genabab (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel,  and Palestine.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep As this is an article I wrote, I believe (according to rule.4 on the "How to Contribute" section) I should say there may be a COI? I have no other relation to the event outside of that of course.
 * At any rate, saying the article is a 'recycling of Hamas propaganda' is a dishonest framing. The article goes through pains to state that the claims being made, are in fact claims from Hamas. That is not biased. Hamas is at the end of the day making these claims. Furthermore, the deaths of 60 IDF soldiers in one ambush is very much notable, seeing as how other attacks like the Shuja'iyya ambush, which claimed the lives of 9 IDF soldiers, remain. Genabab (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You're not getting it. The notability that you're referring to rests entirely on Hamas' claims, which have not been verified. Since you mention it, I encourage you to take a look at the Shuja'iyya ambush and note the differences between that article and this one. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Mikrobølgeovn
 * > which have not been verified.
 * This is not entirely true:
 * Quoting from the following source:
 * https://www.newarab.com/news/hamas-releases-video-showing-israeli-camp-attack
 * "The video comes two days after the Qassam Brigades claimed a major attack on an Israeli encampment south of Gaza City. "At dawn today, the Qassam fighters were able to monitor the positioning of dozens of occupation soldiers (60 soldiers) inside tents at their positioning point east of Juhr al-Deek," the statement claimed."
 * Now I know that you will claim this is not enough, as it is only Al-Qassam making the claim. Really this isn't a problem, since the source stresses that it is only al-Qassam making the claim.
 * HOWEVER!
 * "Israel has not confirmed the attack but did reveal the names of at least seven soldiers killed in fighting around Gaza since Sunday. Details on army casualties are subject to strict army censorship."
 * Hamas publishes what is clearly a video of an attack on the IDF, (see above). The IDF then does not comment on the attack but does say seven soldiers died.
 * As a compromise I propose the addition of 7 (per IDF) (after all, the IDF's claims are no more reliable than Hamas') in the casualties list. Genabab (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. While events within a war certainly can be notable, in this case it is questionable if the event ever happened. It could be an invention to boast Hamas funding, support, and morale. Hence we work by SIGCOV in RS. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Videos have been published of the attack in question, as was brought up on the talk page of the wikipage in question. The question is less if the attack happened, and more how many died. While Israel hasn't commented specifically the IDF did publish casualties of 7 killed. Genabab (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article indeed claims that there are 7 casualties according to Israel. I followed the source. It's a website called "The New Arab". That is not an Israeli source is it? This is the text on which you base your claim above: Israel has not confirmed the attack but did reveal the names of at least seven soldiers killed in fighting around Gaza since Sunday. Details on army casualties are subject to strict army censorship. So this event has never been confirmed and we have no RS that this ever happened. And these seven casualties (if correct) needn't be casualties of this supposed battle. They'd be Israeli casualties in the Northern Gaza Strip over a certain time span. The Hamas movie, doctored by the creators, appears to show soldiers somewhere and sometime at a camp. That's not a valid source AND not proof of ANY ambush, in the article specific in space and time. Hence I will add WP:OR and WP:SYNTH templates to the article. To the closing person: these are additional reasons why this article should be deleted and speedied. OR and SYNTH cause huge damage to the reputation of WP. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said it was an Israeli source.
 * Is it wrong to say that the point the article is making is that these 7 casualties are tied to the ambush, or that the video is from the ambush as well? I'm not sure how that could fall under synth or original research... Genabab (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not create articles based on inferences in Hamas movies. Nor ISIS movies or Al Qaeda movies or Boko Haram movies. We're an encyclopedia not a clown show. The fact that this is not a movie of any battle only makes things worse. gidonb (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is based on a single unverified and rather fantastical claim by one of the parties, which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Compare to the ambush in Shuja'iya, which was readily admitted to by Israel. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is speculation and otherwise just a bit of bit of WP history and coincidence. Around 2004, I detected my first major hoax at Enwiki. It was a clever multi-article plot with themes borrowed from the central garbage dump of Israel (now the Ariel Sharon Park) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflct. We're some 19 years further, yet Juhor ad-Dik is the central garbage dump of Gaza. By the Juhor ad-Dik creator, I also detected a questionable article of USSR/British history and there are some red flags on their talk page. I have asked for an expert opinion at the other article. gidonb (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Not every component of this atrocious war is independently notable. Even if it did happen exactly as Hamas claims (I have no opinion on that; please consider that a blanket caveat to the rest of this !vote), it is far WP:TOOSOON to tell whether this supposed ambush will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall war. For this particular article, the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS; no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged; in-depth analysis does not exist at all yet; and the reporting around this element of the attack has not been WP:SUSTAINED outside the one-week window around the purported event. If it happened and the sources evolve to explain it, the event should be covered in appropriate detail in the parent article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: If merge is not the accepted consensus, please consider me a Delete !vote; my reasons for merging are identical to reasons I would propose for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Appears to be a minor battle with little to no coverage; what's used for sourcing isn't in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No Israeli RS has reported on this nor has any other non-Hamas news agency reported on this (CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP, etc.). 60 soldiers killed in a single attack is not something that can be kept secret in a country like Israel so I very much doubt this even happened. Regarding the video, all we see is one video where someone is taking a very close video of soldiers, and a second video of an explosion from far away. There is nothing in that video that can confirm those two videos are from the same event. This seems like propaganda and fake news from Hamas. Until non-Hamas RS report this, this should be deleted and its content not merged into any article. Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No GNG. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:V. The primary source of this article, "Mehr News Agency" is owned by the Iranian government and not WP:RS. The Turkish news agency "AA" source only quotes a Hamas press release verbatim, see WP:PRSOURCE - "Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability". Marokwitz (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2023 (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.