Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reunification of Jerusalem

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. There isn't really a reason for deletion identified here except POV / non-neutrality, but in my view this is an unconvincing argument: we do cover as subjects territorial claims or changes that may be illegitimate, see e.g. Category:Irredentism, which does not prevent us from neutrally covering the subject. To the extent that the title may be non-neutral because it reflects the Israeli view about the status of Jerusalem, or the contents may be redundant to other articles, these are issues that can be resolved editorially without requiring deletion. For these reasons, I can't give the "delete" opinions the same weight as the "keep" opinions here, given that the notability of the event at issue (however one might want to call it) is uncontested. Sandstein 10:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reunification of Jerusalem

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

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

Redundant, material may be merged as necessary in Jerusalem Law, Jerusalem Day, West Jerusalem, Jerusalem, East Jerusalem or Status of Jerusalem Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy reason given for deletion. Anyhow this topic meet WP:GNG so no reason to delete --Shrike (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, it's merge and delete not delete, redundancy is a policy reason in that case.Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, Please give a link to relevant policy Shrike (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be helpful Shrike, this page was created just a few years ago by a blocked sock, redundant = fork (content and POV, both).Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of what article exactly? I think you just WP:DONTLIKEIT.This a notable topic that deserve a separate article Shrike (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question and I answered you. You are quite right about my not liking it, I don't like nonNPOV content forks set up by blocked socks. Don't bother me with any more pointless questions, the closer can decide.Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article with this name can never become NPOV; that name reflect a 100% pro-Israeli view. A Palestinian might want to change the title to "Occupation of the whole of Jerusalem" Huldra (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is inherently POV, and as Huldra notes above can never become neutral. Furthermore, the content is almost entirely written from an Israeli perspective. This is inevitable, since it is only possible from such a perspective to see the city as united. It is indeed under one political administration, but it is patently obvious to any visitor or observer that it is ethnically, socially, culturally and economically divided. A useful article could possibly be written about this, but certainly not under the current title, which implies acceptance of a highly-disputed assertion. RolandR (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously going to go down the road of NPOV? There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that carry a non-neutral POV. If you have relevant opposing views to what is presented and can find reliable sources to back it up then add it to the article. AfD is not for article cleanup. Either the subject is notable and provides reliable sources or it doesn't. That's what you should judge its merits on. Not opposed to a merge as described above but if the intent is to use this merge to then bring the new article to AfD then I feel this is pure manipulation and the article should be kept as is. We don't get rid of articles because someone doesn't like the contents. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with @Huldra and RolandR:--Maher27777 (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true for any article, that its material may be merged into other articles ("Jerusalem Law, Jerusalem, East Jerusalem or Status of Jerusalem"). The point of having an article is that this is a noteworthy subject in itself, which unifies all the information about that subject in one place. Including the fact that a remembrance day was instituted because of it. The claim that it is POV is irrelevant, since any POV that has become noteworthy, becomes deserving of an article. That is in addition to the fact that the POV claim is ridiculous, akin to claiming that Independence Day (United States) is POV. I would say that this nomination is POV (just see the list of the usual editors on the "delete" side). Debresser (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to one of "the usual editors" on the "keep" side, we could rename it Annexation of East Jerusalem. What do you think?

And we are not saying that Jerusalem Day is POV (yet).Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I would not be adverse to discussing that proposal after this nomination is closed as "keep" or retracted, because that is an interesting proposal in its own right, and should not be discussed in the framework of a deletion proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect I have noticed that there are about two orders of magnitudes more articles on Wikipedia than active editors. In other words, whether "Reunification of Jerusalem" is real topic or not is rather inconsequential because no one will ever take the time to develop the stub into a substantial article. Besides, there is very little actual content in the article that is not already present in History of Jerusalem. ImTheIP (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of editors available to work on articles is not a valid argument for deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable concept like German reunification. There are a whole lot of sources covering "reunified Jerusalem" or "reunited Jerusalem". While there are geopolitical agents that are opposed to the city being under a single administration, the reality is that the city is administered as a single unit. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Vici Vidi: AFAIK, after year or two no country opposed German unification (although there were some -understandably- scepticism at first). After 53 years: no country (with the exception of US?) har recognised the "Reunification of Jerusalem". "Slight" difference, wouldn't you say? Huldra (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US (Trump admin) says that it is a final status issue to be agreed between the parties, they simply agreed to recognize Jerusalem as capitol.Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reunification of Jerusalem is a legitimate and highly notable topic. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vici Vidi. Being controversial makes this more notable rather than less. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem here is that East Jerusalem has been annexed in Israeli Law. Now, either the Jerusalem Law is the annex (the lead of this article says that the Jerusalem Law formalized the action described in this article) or the extension of municipal boundaries to include East Jerusalem and application of Israeli law there (ie this article) is the annex. The slew of UN resolutions (not even mentioned in this article) following the action described in this article treated this as an attempted annex. Now I don't mind which way around it goes but trying to disguise one event as two is pure nonsense. Why was this article written in 2017 when the Jerusalem Law article was written in 2004? Well, look at the creator and you have your answer.Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely isn't in good shape, but I don't see why reunification can't be a process with multiple steps rather than a single event. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation#By_Israel for what I am talking about. If this ends up as keep then I will propose the merge directly, either here or at Jerusalem Law. The celebration (of the day) is already at Jerusalem day, the holiday part of this is somewhat irrelevant.Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do as you please. You have been opposed once, and such a proposal will likely be viewed as forumshopping. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A rename proposal is another possibility, you already approved of that above, seems you have a selective approach. I admitted on the article talk page that I don't know the best way to fix the problem but that there is a problem is clear from that same talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with the idea of a discussion to rename the article. A merge proposal I would almost certainly oppose. Just saying. BTW, I don't see the problem. Please understand that he fact that you see a problem does not mean that other editors see a problem.Debresser (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was only me I wouldn't be bothering with this at all, like I said see the talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Debresser. Maybe we could specify that this is a term used in Israeli historiography or something similar. Super Ψ Dro 01:52, 6 January 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.