Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Naama Levy

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Several policy issues were brought up in this discussion, and I'll try to address each:

  1. Right to be forgotten is a legal right in many jurisdictions. As such, it is outside the scope of an AfD, as several here pointed out. Ms. Levy is welcome to contact the WMF directly, and if her request is approved, the page will be removed per WP:OFFICE.
  2. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies specifically to biographical articles. And while this article is about an event rather than a biography, since this person is only known for this one event, I believe it is fair to extend the scope of BLPREQUESTDELETE to include this article. I also think it is fair to consider the request made to the admins of he-wiki as applying to all projects. But this leaves us with the question of who made the request. The announcement from the he-wiki admins said, Naama Levy's family contacted us. BLPREQUESTDELETE is very specific about who can make the request: where the subject has requested deletion. Ms. Levy is above the age of majority in her jurisdiction, and to the best of my knowledge, has not had a legal guardian appointed to her. Therefore, any valid request must come from her, not her family. This isn't a mere technicality. As The Mountain of Eden
    pointed out, that same family went out of their way to publicize the case, and did so for a vital cause. But in doing so, they helped create a large amount of significant coverage, which now, when it no longer serves their purpose, they wish to suppress.
  3. The page having been created by a now-banned sock is irrelevant. WP:G5 specifically applies to pages that have no substantial edits by others, which clearly is not the case here.
  4. The claim that WP:GNG does not apply to events is patently wrong.
    WP:LASTING
    .
  5. Several here !voted Delete based on the argument that "we don't need an article for each person that was kidnapped". I read this as a form of
    WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
    . The question before us is about the kidnapping of one person, based on sourcing broadly deemed to pass GNG by consensus here. Whether we need the article is not a valid deletion criterion.
  6. Finally, the page falls under
    WP:PIA
    , but thankfully all participants were EC, albeit in one case just barely.

Since participation was extensive, I see no point in dragging this on for another week. Even after discarding views not based on P&G, there is no consensus either way. Please refrain from renominating this for six months. Owen× ☎ 15:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Naama Levy

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

Kidnapping of Naama Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was created by a

NOT criteria, but it was restored. The "media coverage" was not relevant. There are other En WP general, not biographical, articles which dealt with the issue. The biography of a living person is not needed here. The subject is not a leader nor a public figure, but a soldier. Please see also Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli. Dgw|Talk 23:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Selfgyrus (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Updates from today:
Funcs (He WP bureaucrat): "I did not say that it was done by the authority of any of us, I said that in my opinion, anyone (even a non-admin) had the authority to take the same action because the decision came from very unusual reason which justified an unusual action."
PurpleBuffalo (He WP admin): "No one had the authority to do this, and it was done anyway. I support this action, despite the lack of authority, in these extremely unusual circumstances."
Dgw|Talk 21:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I'm not sure if and when sock-created articles must be deleted, although it's often an auxiliary reason that an article can be deleted. The same rule applies to children who become notable or famous, for example, as child actors. I often !vote for
    Antizionism, misogyny, and victimology. There is tremendous interest about this person, as seen from page views. The governing law over Wikimedia Foundation does not recognize a right to be forgotten, although with a certain lawsuit that dares not bare its name could find that each country's laws apply to NGOs in that country even if only electronically. Can we discuss this further? Bearian (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WMF is a personality for Israel (article 4 of the law of interpretation).
In Israel, if someone applies a removal, and the removal is legitimate and possible, the host has to remove the item.
It is written also here.
Google was addressed due to collecting information. The plaintiffs were citizens of Israel, and it was heard in the district court at Tel Aviv. Dgw|Talk 23:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That presumably has no bearing on this AfD in English Wikipedia where people are free to make decisions based on policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the user an authorized lawyer? Seeing their
WP:COI is possible. I did not understand: "making edits in the ARBPIA topic area due to the servers' and bots' inability to effectively suppress dissent". Was the dissent – the family? Dgw|Talk 13:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Jeez... Editors are free to make decisions based on policy. Whether you understand that or agree with it is not really relevant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm puzzled by how both BLP and NOTMEMORIAL can apply to the same page. Isn't a person either dead or alive? gidonb (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point when you take NOTMEMORIAL literally. Obviously, in this context, NOTMEMORIAL is meant for "not memorializing the kidnapping". Nonetheless, per my !vote below, I don't think either applies, and !voted to keep. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the condition that a new article is created of the 5 now-released captive observation soldiers from the Nahal Oz attack. Or, at least, the attack article is expanded to include their names and details of their captivity. Their images and captivity videos were significant, as was their role in the January 2025 prisoner exchange. If she is notable alone in the future, the individual article can be reinstated. Wisenerd (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The lead image should be replaced with a fair use version of the image in this article, or similar. I believe either this image, or a similar image used to be the lead image but got deleted. Although 251 people were kidnapped from Israel during the attack by Hamas on October 7, a few cases were more notable than the rest. The key sentence in the lead "Images from the footage have come to symbolize sexual violence against Israeli women during the attacks" explains why this kidnapping case is more notable and should be kept.
    Unfortunately, the current lead image gives the wrong impression that the case of Naama Levy is no more notable than the other 250 kidnappings. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a free picture is available, a copyrighted picture does not apply. A
BLP. Dgw|Talk 12:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
When the free photo is an equivalent substitute, the free photo is preferable. In this case, the replaced free photo is not an equivalent substitute.
Can you cite where within
WP:BLPREQDEL is not really applicable here. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kidnapping_of_Naama_Levy&oldid=1281367429"