Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas external European operations
- 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. ✗plicit 14:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hamas external European operations (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 subject of this article, "Hamas external European operations", does not appear to exist as a discrete, reliably defined, or independently recognised topic. A search of reliable secondary sources shows no evidence that this is an established term or organisational structure. As such, the article appears to be a WP:NEO (a neologism invented by editors rather than documented in independent sources) and a case of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.
The article also appears to constitute a WP:CFORK/WP:POVFORK, in that it selectively compiles incidents and news reports from various European countries to create the appearance of a unified "European external operations" entity that is not described by the sources. Creating a new article to aggregate disparate material into a novel interpretation violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a construction and, again, one not supported by independent sources.
Additionally, portions of the article raise WP:BLPCRIME concerns by presenting allegations about living individuals based largely on primary or marginal sources without the level of high-quality, independent sourcing required.
Regarding sourcing more generally, the article relies heavily on a small number of sources, several of which do not meet the standard of strong, independent, secondary coverage required for establishing notability (see WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTABLE). The use of primary Israeli government and government-aligned materials, think-tank publications with clear political affiliations such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, material from the US government affiliated and Israeli-aligned Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and Euronews further underscore the sourcing problems.
The topic does not meet WP:GNG or any subject-specific notability guideline, and because it represents an editor-constructed topic not supported in reliable sources, the article does not warrant a standalone page. Any content that is verifiable, neutral, and supported by high-quality sources can be merged into already-existing and appropriate articles, such as:
Delete as a non-notable, synth, and improperly sourced content fork. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Palestine, and Europe. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as a redundant fork. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete this is a collection of unproven allegations that people are "linked" to hamas. in one case it's allegations that someone is "linked" to a weapons cache that is "linked" to an organization that is "linked" to hamas. according to RS, hamas typically doesn't operate outside of Israel & Palestine. calling this hamas's external operations in europe seems like a slight exaggeration. the content from the better sources should be summarized and put in 1 of the articles Smallangryplanet suggested. Rainsage (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG & synth. Editor is following a worrying trend of creating articles not adhering to WP:NPOV as well. Equine-man (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as the page is merely a collation of random news reports from multiple countries that do not constitute what the article title purports exists. It also looks very much like the page was made with an LLM, and the editor who made it has a habit of making these pages in quick succession that primarily consist of duplicated content apparently for the purpose of emphasizing a particular subject, i.e., POV content forks. And they share the same LLM-like clunky abstract formal writing style which is distinct from how the editor writes in talk responses. In prior edits this editor has left the chatgpt part of urls inserted, and the style of writing and poor quality of sourcing (broken links, links to clearly non-RS sources) further indicate this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:POVFORK which does not pass WP:GNG. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- KEEP: The article has solid facts and sources such as: The Washington post, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Le Mond, Telegraph, Euronews, France 24 and others. Claiming it is poorly sourced is a foul attempt to discredit the article. All actions are well documented and notable, receiving media attention. Just because someone writes facts reported in the news, does not mean it is POV, it is simple a user writing facts reported in the news. Your attempt to claim it is POV, that's POV. ShoBDin (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, reply above me just talks about the sources which cover the topic. The nom does not dispute that they do. The nom claims that it is WP:SYNTH, and that it is. User:Easternsaharareview this 23:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, also the Global Sumud Flotilla section gives undue weight to the baseless accusation by the Israeli government. Laura240406 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2025 (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.