Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidon

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. I don't see a consensus after 3 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. It might very well be brought to AFD again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kidon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unconfirmed claims and rumours, mostly non-notable pop references, anti-Israel propaganda jftsang 22:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article could be improved, but it looks like the "unconfirmed claims" section heading may be misleading, considering it contains sourced and attributed statements. What is the anti-Israel propaganda? I see that Kidon is frequently referenced in news, including English-language Israeli news to give a few examples.[1][2][3] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with keeping. The article is sourced, both by both Israeli and worldwide press, and the unit deserves an article. Bharel (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't offer any opinion here, except to say that it suits both Israel and its adversaries to claim that Mossad has some sort of superpowers, so we need to beware of people (who I'm sure include nobody who has commented so far) pushing an agenda in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mossad. While a new conclusion, this opinion actually builds on the points made above. Nominator describes the articles correctly. Given the current content of Kidon and Mossad, our Kidon article should be viewed as a preliminary and unjustified WP:SPINOFF and even as a WP:FORK of Mossad. The sole keep-sayer stands correct that theoretically all units in the Israeli security apparatus can be notable and sources will exist. The comment-sayer stands correct in noting that discussions with a direct or indirect relationship to Palestine have the tendency to become politicized. Folks should recommend what is good for Wikipedia, not for this or that side in a dispute! Since there is no hypothetical problem with the notability of this unit, only it is unclear what if anything is salvable, it should be redirected. For practical reasons (mentioned) also freeze from recreation without some form of supervision (minimal, an admin who can then keep an eye on the process) because these forks take our quality down. gidonb (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: no objection either to making this a disambiguation page for pointing out the unit of the (grand)parent, the film, and the person with the surname of Kidon. gidonb (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding merge. I do not object to a merge, just had not detected a sentence that was missing at the target. In fact, merging would be an improvement over the current situation. As I see it the entire topic of Kidon is inherently notable. That is where I agree with the keep-sayers. However, without meaningful text about the unit in the article WP:AFDd, missing at the target, redirect makes the most sense. gidonb (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mossad: A trimmed down and properly sourced version should be merged. If the subject ever expands with proper sourcing the redirect can be overwritten // Timothy :: talk 21:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, it's covered in Haretz and confirmed by other sources. I'm not sure what we're disputing exactly. It meets GNG. You want to re-write it so it's NPOV, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post has coverage about the guy that founded the outfit. [4] and [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, divided between those advocating Merge and those wanting to Keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be merged with Mossad, but if not should at least redirect. Serratra (talk) 05:00, 25 January 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.