Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dado Center for Interdisciplinary Military Studies

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dado Center for Interdisciplinary Military Studies

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

Military department doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG This unit has many publications in hebrew and allot of coverage, there are 2 sources that talk about Dado center. This is unit is important in IDF and has allot of influance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisshin (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has the appearance of an enormous WP:BEFORE failure, where only the references in the article were examined. Well, one click on the hewiki article, shows a very different reality. And if a web search by WP:NEXIST was at all conducted (as it should), this should also have included the search string in Hebrew. The Dado Center passes WP:NORG and the WP:GNG with the greatest of ease. Meritless nominations such as this are borderline disruptive for taking precious time away from improvements in the article space. gidonb (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wouldn't say there are that many sources on the Hebrew wiki article, and a lot of them appear to be IDF, which makes them less independent of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intro and history are referenced by independent and important media. This is an example of other sources that can be found online. For sure, there are in existence in addition to notability supporting references, also references on hewiki that do not count towards notability and only support data in the article. That's normal. But while such references specifically do not add to the notability of the subject, they do not take away from it either. It is a routine red herring argument after notability has already been established. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett In hebrew it has many media mentions by the largest Israeli news websites such as Haaretz, Ynet (User talk:Borisshin) 19:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is it significant, non routine coverage in the news? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borisshin, which of these mentions do you think best establishes notability for the organisation? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett, Yes they are making news headline, senior IDF officer's don't give interviews where they can give opinion about IDF preformance. The articales they write in Dado monitored regulary and quoted as their opinion by Haaretz, Ynet (User talk:Borisshin) 19:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle, any of them take this one https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5631984,00.html the hadline is Senior in IDF "serving in protecting the borders percived as unnecessary".

Thank you, Borisshin. I wouldn't say it is "in-depth" coverage about the organisation, but the article does go some way to helping establish notability. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is an important organization with sufficient coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2021 (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.