Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma'ale HaShalom (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ale HaShalom

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

Ok, so Jerusalem is an important city, nobody is questioning that. This street passes by some notable locations, not questioning that either. Notability is not inherited. The article does not explain why the street itself is notable enough to have its own article. The two sources used don't seem to have conveyed much information about this street, and one of them appears to be a book that has details on virtually every street in Jerusalem, so being listed there would not seem to confer notability. At the last AFD several users argued that there should be sources out there and that argument led to a "no consensus" result. Three weeks at at AFD, and all these months later those hypothetical sources still have not been found. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a street, it goes past some places, it's in a famous city. But no indication of its notability (unless the incomprehensible final sentence/para can be clarified into something giving notability?). PamD (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I can't currently verify that the Jerusalem streets book does not seem to give more than a sentence to this street, like the with previous AfD I would use common sense and judge the road that half surrounds Mount Zion as more than "just a street." Even just by its location indicates historic significance.--Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nom, notability is not inherited. Passing by notable locations does not confer notability on a street. If its common sense that it is notable anyway, where are the sources to back that up? Why can't anyone seem to find them? Beeblebrox (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is this road has changed names many times throughout history with multiple spellings in multiple languages and mostly in non-Latin characters. --Oakshade (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly not every street in Jerusalem is notable, but this one makes a claim of notability which seems substantiated. Andrevan@ 06:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Andrevan. This street is a notable one. Marokwitz (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only does this street surround some notable places, but it is in fact the access road to them. The source that is mentioned that names "every" street in Jerusalem gives out quite notable information on every street listed. Linda Olive (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INHERIT. Passing by a notable location does not confer notability on a road. Neither does being the access to said location. Neither does being listed in a directory of roads. By that logic every road in Jerusalem is notable and every road that can be used to get anywhere notable is also notable. You can't seriously believe that to be the case. Can you? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only are there multiple sources, but the sources also explain how the road got its name, a very important factor in notability of a road. Sebwite (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this is going but I really don't see the logic of that statement. Every road on earth got it's name for some reason or other. I grew up on a road called Miami Avenue. It was named that because it is on the banks of the Little Miami River. Does that make it notable? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the general notability guideline states that something is notable on the basis of reliable sources. If you have reliable sources stating how a street got its name, that can contribute to making the street notable. It is very hard to find reliable sources that identify the origin of the name for most streets, and for this one, you can. Sebwite (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think that through again. That source is a guidebook that tells how nearly every street in Jerusalem got its name. In point of fact the person who added that copied almost word for word what the book had to say about this street. Two sentences on page 240. So again, by that logic every single street mentioned the 407 pages of that book would be automatically notable. The nutshell version of WP:N is "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Two sentences is hardly significant and enduring notice by the world at large. The other source is a work of fiction that mentions the street one time. A work of fiction is not a reliable source. See, if you actually bother to check the sources you will find they are extremely weak. The argument that these sources confer notability is laughable. Check for yourself and you will see. There's one source we have that isn't fiction says this is a name for a gate, not a street. We've got nothing usable here, nothing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed the content sourced to the novel, and the content not attributed to any source. What we have left is the two sentences from the guidebook. They do not even verify that this is the name of a road, but only mention the Dung Gate, indicating this is another name for it. So, we can't even verify that this is the name of a street, let alone a notable one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have reverted me with the cryptic edit summary "wait until after afd."[1] I'm not aware of any policy, guideline, or even an essay that says that improperly sourced content cannot be removed during an AFD. Original research and content presented as fact that is in actuality based on a novel is the sort of thing we can and should remove at any time. As such I will be reverting that edit. This AFD has been rife with imaginary policies and guidelines that are apparently being made up on the spot to serve the desires of those making various unfounded assertions and this blind reverting of my edits, which have a very sound basis in Wikipedia policy, is over the line. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—two sourced sentences does not an article make. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebwhite has elected to re-insert this improperly sourced content despite having no policy-based reason for doing so. I'm dismayed that they have elected to ignore policy like this but I can't revert to a version in compliance with WP:V without embarking on an edit war. See also: User talk:Beeblebrox#Ma'ale HaShalom info removal. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2011 (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.