Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Jerusalem (2nd nomination)

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. J04n(talk page) 15:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Jerusalem

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

This page violates WP:CONTENTFORKING and WP:POVFORK. Since the first AFD discussion in 2011, nothing substantive has been done to improve the article, and there are still no references. The section, Mayors of West Jerusalem, is obvious POV, as there are no Mayors of East Jerusalem. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jerusalem per WP:CONTENTFORKING and WP:POVFORK. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 26. Snotbot t • c » 10:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is just nothing to write in that article. The fact that it exists for so long and nothing substantial was written there kinda proves it. I'll just repeat what I already said at the talk page: The controversy about the occupation East Jerusalem exists, of course, but you can write about it in the articles Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, Positions on Jerusalem, etc. But there's just nothing of significance to write in this article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why to delete this ? The notion of West Jerusalem is something well known and attested by sources. The city was divided in 1948 by the war and still today there is an East Jerusalem that is expected by the Palestinians to become their capital and a Western Jerusalem that refers to the Israeli side even if Israeli annexed the whole city. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Pluto2012 says, it's a widely and commonly used name for the Jewish part of Jerusalem. For example this BBC article clearly refers to it. In fact (and I hate when other people say this at AfD, but in this case its abundantly true) if you Google "West Jerusalem" you find numerous news and book sources. Sionk (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sionk and Pluto2012 are right, it is a well-known name and it is even referenced. But according to Wikipedia rules, it is WP:CONTENTFORKING, as the subject is adequately covered in the main Jerusalem article. As the term is a political hot button, it is also WP:POVFORK. Both Sionk's and Pluto2012's !votes need to cite policy, not gut feelings. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:GNG. I say no more! In contrast, the 'delete' arguments seem to be IDONTLIKEIT. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place is definitely notable. That is not the question. The question is different: Does it constitute content forking or not? I'm not even talking about POV forking. I am not denying the controversy about the status of Jerusalem. I am just saying that there is nothing useful to write in this article that cannot be written in other existing articles. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm no expert on forking, the nominator is incorrect that there are no Mayors of East Jerusalem; in fact, they are listed here as well. The referencing in this article may be poor but there are tons of sources available and I am continuing to improve some referencing in the article. Bottom line: An AfD is not the place for an argument on Israel-Palestine politics. - tucoxn\^talk 06:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not a place for an argument on Israel-Palestine politics. And it's not an argument on Israel-Palestine politics. It's an argument that says that there's nothing to write in the article "West Jerusalem" that can't be written in other articles. The recently added references just prove it further: More than half of them are completely artificial - they are references about mayors of Jerusalem, and they are already listed in the article Jerusalem. And the rest are essentially artificial, too; for example, Israel didn't establish "West Jerusalem" as its capital in 1950; it established "Jerusalem" as its capital in 1950. It was West Jerusalem geographically de-facto, but the law didn't say "West Jerusalem". All this is already written in the article about Jerusalem.
West, East, North, and South can be found in any city. In some cases it warrants an article. In this case it doesn't. Yes, the city was divided de-facto from 1948 until 1967. Yes, its unification is very controversial. But no, you don't need this article to write about these things. They are already described in great detail elsewhere. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an argument about Israel-Palestine politics to me! Or at best a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. And Jerusalem was divided between West and East in 1948, so these entities existed, were controversial and have been widely written about. Therefore articles are entirely justified. Not dissimilar in fact to the justification for West Berlin and East Berlin articles (there's nothing on North Berlin or South Berlin). Though to be honest I was surprised to see the West Jerusalem article had remained quite undeveloped and unsourced until now. But thanks to the nominator for raising the issue because at least it has kick-started some editors to work on it! Sionk (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that this article remained undeveloped, because there's nothing to develop in it. The only way to develop it is to make a POV fork. The recent edits are completely artificial. They make the article appear to have a lot of references, but they are irrelevant. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example to support having multiple articles for multiple sections of a city is Washington, D.C.. D.C. is divided into four quadrants: Northwest (NW), Northeast (NE), Southeast (SE), and Southwest (SW). Each quadrant has its own article on Wikipedia. One can see that each of the quadrants' articles is linked in the main article by reading the main article's Cityscape section. Jerusalem has an important duocentric structure, which is referenced in academic studies and other reliable sources (in addition to unreliable, politically biased sources). - tucoxn\^talk 17:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there's an article that says that Jerusalem has a duocentric structure. That article can be referenced from the article about Jerusalem. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs an article about West Jerusalem.

Three of the four articles about DC's quadrants have very little information except links to articles about neighborhoods. It's not a very good example either. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a good reason to treat West Jerusalem differently from East Jerusalem. We shouldn't get rid of just one of those two articles. Zero^talk 04:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the reasons cited above, and even if it's simply because of the fact that it is part of the political jargon surrounding "the Jerusalem question", this article has been around since 2005 and like many good topics awaits better editing. The reasoning given for the deletion is not strong enough. On Google "West Jerusalem" scores 252,000 hits, way good enough for a WP article about it, while of course East Jerusalem has about eight times that number on Google, but even that is significant because any important "East" must have a related and connected "West" and vice versa. Just as important "Souths" have equally significant "Norths" and vice versa in history, politics, geography, culture, religion, etc. IZAK (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, does West Virginia has a connected East? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Shore of Virginia :) ...though that has little bearing on this AfD. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that saying that any important "East" must have a related and connected "West" is a wrong and irrelevant argument. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you obviously are not following my reasoning here. I am referring to the conceptual and actual political and the interconnected geographic realities between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem in the same sense and on the same international sense of importance as the former West Berlin versus and connected to East Berlin, or South Vietnam to North Vietnam etc -- they were all eventually one entity, there are several examples like this that have entered the political and geographic lexicon, while others that are less important have not. IZAK (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (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.