Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirim attack


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Editors interested in a possible Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nirim attack

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

This attack has no need to be a standalone page outside of 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, where the three paragraphs on the attack can be easily accommodated, and where the material would sit in it broader context (WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of the detail here is poorly supported by the in-line citation and needs reworking. The only statement providing a firm casualty count at the time of this nomination, for example, actually failed verification, with the citation containing only a trivial mention of the attack. The number of injured is then a question mark: "many", and there is no count of the attackers either. Overall, between the thin detail / other content issues, and the lack of an obvious need for a standalone page, the page should be merged. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Terrorism, Islam,  and Palestine.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  07:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is enough information here to warrant a separate article. 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dovidroth (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep 'Only' 5 Israelis were killed in Nirim. So indeed, it might not be entitled to be a full 'massacre'. Only the bravery of a few citizens prevented a massacre and attrocities seen in nearby kibbuzim by Hamas terrorists. But this is a story that justifies an article, distinct from and not overshadowed by the horrendous, cruel massacres in Nova, Be'eri and Kfar Aza. Furtermore, most likely that the article will be expanded and updated in the future as details are uncovered, such as the fate of the kibbutz members that were kidnapped, the restoration of the kibbutz etc. And last, just looking at the readable prose size, there is no technical necessity for a merge. GidiD (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's less that there's a technical necessity for a merge so much as there was never a technical necessity for a standalone page separate from 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep considering notability, media coverage. Well sourced page, should be kept.
 * Homerethegreat (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as it's more than notable. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. As proven above, in the article, and elsewhere, all these massacres are inherently notable. This particular article is long and unique enough enough not to merge. WP:SNOW does apply. gidonb (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily notable based on wide and persistent coverage by independent reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. As with the dozen other articles, every event in the atrocious attack is not independently notable. The sources above are entirely primary (mostly WP:PRIMARYNEWS), there is no separate notability of this particular event, and no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged beyond WP:ITEXISTS. It is far, far WP:TOOSOON to tell which attacks, massacres and other crimes will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall attack. A telltale element here is that the flurry of reporting around this particular portion of the attack has not been sustained; passing mentions like the killing of the commander are readily found, but in-depth analysis simply does not exist. For direct policy rationale beyond what I have linked above, I'd say that this falls very clearly in WP:EVENTCRIT #4. This was an horrific act that is more than covered by the parent article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Sources and content in the article show this meets WP:N and has the properly sourced content to support a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:01, 29 November 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.