Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lebanon

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lebanon. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lebanon|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lebanon. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Middle East.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lebanon/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Lebanon

Gold Apollo AR924

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT. Seems only notable within the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, and doesn't appear to warrant a standalone article. Article did not exist prior to the explosions, nor seemingly any reliable sources covering it, failing the "sustained coverage" requirement of NPRODUCT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Taiwan, Lebanon, and Hungary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Copying here what I wrote when I WP:PRODded this article yesterday:

This particular model of pager seems to be notable only in the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. I can find no mention of "Gold Apollo AR-924," "Gold Apollo AR924" or "Gold Apollo AR" outside of news sources reporting the Israeli bombings. "Gold Apollo pager" returns only results for these news articles, the company's website, patent documents, and similar. The sources currently cited at the article fail the criteria for addressing the article topic "directly," as in the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG.

While the particular model of pager is likely to receive a good amount of (temporary) media scrutiny from a few outlets, this will likely be only in the context of the above-mentioned bombings. Although WP:SUSTAINED does not apply to non-BLP articles, WP:NPRODUCT does, and although secondary sources refer to this particular device, there seems to be no claim to notability outside of this single event, for which we already have an article. Thus, I believe this article fails to establish notability for the topic, and our status as not an indiscriminate collection of information is applicable. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The model exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x50wwGjX2Ao

and

https://web.archive.org/web/20240917160632/https://www.apollosystemshk.com/product/42.html Mheretakis (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to wait as evidence unfolds, hiding the page ,may be misinterpreted as corruption even though it is not. 38.9.2.102 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is suggesting this information should be hidden. Information about the attack has it's own article. The only information specific to this article is just the features of this device, which are not secret. This discussion is about if this article is notable enough to exist, not if it should be censored. Thank you 2603:6011:9440:D700:CC1F:F350:E9EB:5F48 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No other model of pager produced by the company exists on Wikipedia, information related to this product should be at most made a small section on the manufacturer's page. Beyond recent events, it is otherwise completely irrelevant to anything other than the company. JohnWarosa (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was a completely non-notable model of pager until this recent news story. Andre🚐 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ → Speedy keep. This is a weapon used in an attack. With up to 4000 victims, the event can have multiple articles. Possibly move to BAC Consulting. The technical details of the pager are not important, but the supply chain is. Note, that other weapons (talkie-talkies) were also used in the attack. The key question the article needs to answer is who made the pagers and who is responsible for their safety, Gold Apollo or BAC Consulting. Protecting Gold Apollo from bad publicity is not a reason for deleting the article. If they go bankrupt because of this, they fully deserve it. They had a responsibility to protect their trade mark.

P.S. - Wikipedia has an article on Stuxnet, but no article on the attack itself or the damage it caused. The Stuxnet article focuses on the weapon and on how it was delivered. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very flawed. The weapon was the explosives. Stuxnet was specific malware that exploited four zero day Windows vulnerabilities, and the article is about the engineered malware, and not about the model of USB drive it initially infected. But also that argument is off the point. The pager product is only notable if there are reliable independent secondary sources that significantly discuss the pager (not the attack, but the actual pager). Do we have any such sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petri Krohn; There is an article for the attack itself. Parham wiki (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am now changing my !vote to speedy keep. It is becoming evident that the AR924 was not just some random Gold Apollo pager intercepted by Mossad (presumedly), but it was designed and manufactured by the Israelis using the Hungarian company BAC Consulting as a front. This implies that this was a multi-year Israeli operation, started in 2022 at the latest. This covert operation is distinct from the bloodshed that happened in Lebanon this week. I am redirecting BAC Consulting, to the article, as evidently the fake company had no other purpose than to produce these killer pagers.

@Parham wiki; Thank you for the link to Operation Olympic Games. In the Stuxnet case the article on the weapon is ten times as long as the article on the attack itself. I believe we will see a similar trend here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Someone has stated Draft:BAC Consulting. I have suggested that it be merged to Gold Apollo AR924. The company is a fake front, established solely to produce the AR924 killer pagers. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should only bold one of your keeps. By convention at AfD we only bold our !votes once. Also you have not specified a speedy criterion. I don't think any are eligible. I think you mean you are moving from keep to keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gold Apollo#2024 Israeli tampering and explosions in Lebanon per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:SPINOUT, and WP:LENGTH. The parent article has existed since 2014 and has plenty of room to house this information, which is already there in its essential form. No need to delete this highly searchable term since it is a verified product which has been rendered notable by recent events. Havradim leaf a message 01:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many thousands of these devices exploded the other day, injuring, maiming or killing nearly 3000 people. This device is now by far the most notable pager/beeper ever made. This device is at the very center of one of the most dramatic and historic espionage and irregular warfare operations in human history that is certain to be studied and analyzed for many years to come. Already, numerous reliable sources worldwide are discussing this device in great detail, and it boggles my mind that some editors think that this article should be summarily removed. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in this argument is that the exact make and model of pager that was manipulated does not provide justification for an article. Similarly, we have Bulgarian umbrella that details how umbrellas have been rebuilt into a murder weapon - but without creating an article on the actual model of umbrella that was modified - exactly because the make and model of the modified implement does not in itself provide it with notability. Lklundin (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that model may have only been made as a weapon by a covert manufacturer. Hungary denies involvement, says BAC was just a legal front. The page should be about AR924 the weapon. Keysersmoze (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the discussion of this device and the supply chain should be in the main explosion article, which is currently a small fraction of the size that would warrant a WP:SIZESPLIT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of Cullen328. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the arguments of Cullen328 the information about the attack is highly important. A separate article on the pager that itself is notable only for the attack prevents a centralized and well organized presentation of the information on these explosions. Lklundin (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to BAC page. Please count my vote. Flegozoff (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are not counted, consensus is determined based on the strength of arguments. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is a historical first time. This product became important, indeed people looked on Wikipedia for this article (and it is good that they found it).Sinucep (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The device is notable. Whether or not it was notable a week ago is irrelevant. —danhash (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? What sources do we have? I asked this above and so far we have been presented with no sources to consider. We are looking for significant coverage of the product in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. No amount of saying it is notable is good enough. Where are the sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 19 sources on the article —danhash (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these meet WP:NPRODUCT and WP:SIRS? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am a deletionist when it comes to mobiles, and similar devices. But as this device was a centre/key point in a major attack, many reliable sources have covered the device significantly (thus meeting WP:significant coverage) making it pass the WP:GNG, so it doesn't have to pass WP:NPRODUCT specifically. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are already articles for both the attack and the company who had the pager manufactured. Some information could go there. There are a lot of sources mentioning the pager, but only in the context of the attack. Specific coverage is lacking. Cortador (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alleged usage of this device in Lebanon makes this particular model of pager notable, regardless of whether similar models are on Wikipedia. Those similar models did not just explode in masse, killing and injuring people. 96.45.23.79 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was not notable before, the major attacks using this device make it notable now. Keeper of the Queen's Corgis (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edited and updated, not deleted. It should be about the AR924 mass produced and used in conflict weapon, not an article about a pager model. The story is developing and it appears this model may have only been produced as a weapon and not in Hungary which was a shell front. As a page about a weapon, it should be kept for the same reason "Little Boy" has a page, even though no one heard about it until after it exploded over Hiroshima, and it was also only used once. I am sure there is a page about the Manhattan Project, and one about the Hiroshima bombing. Yet the bomb itself has its own page. Notable weapons, especially the first of their type, need their own page because weapons have a design, explosive type and mass, range and effect, delivery method, an assembly, a development process, country that developed it, countries that possess it, number produced, uses in war. The AR924 is clearly notable for reasons mentioned by others and some of the reasons Little Boy is notable. Keysersmoze (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Keeper of the Queen's Corgis and Cullen328, but most of all per Keysersmoze's comment above. The first instance of an entirely new kind of weapon; mass-manufactured booby-trapped remote-detonated personal devices. — The Anome (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if these are specifically manufactured as a booby trap device and are not a standard pager that was modified with a logic board and explosive, then it clearly becomes notable. But, what are the secondary sources that show this please? We have a lot of keeps, but still there is still no source discussion at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given this article is not notable outside the attack on Hezbollah - and given half the article is about the attack, what if this page is deleted and a brief summary of the features of these pager's features is added to 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, as it could provide a little context as to why Hezbollah chose these pagers. Once deleted, this article and BAC Consulting should redirect to 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, as both are solely notable for that attack (BAC Consulting was created exclusively for the attack; it can't be notable for anything else). If these pagers were used in another completely separate attack, or were popular outside of Hezbollah/Lebanon and Syria prior to the attack, then I would keep. However, that is not the case. We don't have a crystal ball, but it seems unlikely very many people will buy this specific brand after this incident.2603:6011:9440:D700:CC1F:F350:E9EB:5F48 (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2024 Lebanon pager explosions - the model was at the center of the attack, and outside of it is not notable. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the story behind the logistical “capture” of the Hezbollah supply chain get into the public domain, it will ensure the notability of the Gold Apollo AR924 as a weapon. Article is also already available in three other languages. Sobaka (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

April 2023 Israel rocket attacks (via WP:PROD on 12 September 2003)