Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit David neighborhood

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Beit David neighborhood

Beit David neighborhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Not notable, OR. I did a little research, and this is not a neighbourhood in the sense of a suburb or a district. It's a small compound of about ten apartments in Rabbi Kook St., Jerusalem.

• Keep - It does seem to be a bonafide Jerusalem neighborhood, and a historic one at that. [1][2] Being only the fourth neighborhood built outside the Old City is pretty significant. The Hebrew WP article] is a good place to start for more content. --Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - It is important chapter in the history of Jerusalem and the architecture of old israel. פארוק (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - Please note that פארוק (talk · contribs) has an indefinite ban from all articles and discussions covered under ARBPIA. Wesley Mouse 16:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for to remind me !. We know that anti-Semitism is e verywhere here !. By the way, I wrote this article myself. פארוק (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The notice was to inform the closing admin, not a reminder to yourself Farouk. And regardless of whether you wrote an the article or not, a ban is a ban, and you should not be violating that ban unless you intend to have your account blocked from further editing. And such attacking comments like the one you have just posted that are clearly directed at myself will not be tolerated. Wesley Mouse 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep In Jerusalem even a small area can be significant. The English language article was a foolishly brief machine translation of the first few sentences of the extensive article in the heWP. I must accept some responsibility for this, for I deprodded the article, and neglected to either expand it myself from there,find someone to do it, or even mark that it should be expanded. Unfortunately, for me to work with this material I can only make use of the Google translation and rewrite it in grammatical English. This is not a very good way of doing a translation, and I must defer to someone who actually does know the language. I can however make an approximate start at it which will at least clarify the importance nd give some context. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - you could always consider userfication to allow someone to further expand the article. And if translation is an issue, perhaps requesting assistance from Wikipedia:Translation team. Wesley Mouse 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to userify, because it is already good enough to keep: two adequate references and sufficient indication that it is considered a defined neighborhood, and why the neighborhood is significant. The translation team can work on it in mainspace. WP articles do not have to be perfect to stay in main space,

One of the innovations of WP was using live mainspace as the editing environment, allowing everyone to see and contribute as articles got improved. There's a current trend, that I think deplorable, to edit privately in AfC (which currently uses WP talk space) and user talk space. This greater reduces the benefits of collaborative editing; their only use is when an article would otherwise be deleted (such as when sourceability is still uncertain) , not when an article just needs improvement. I point out that a recent RfC to ban machine translation failed, because they often provide a usable start for the amateurs who make up the great majority of our editors. Totally unedited machine translations should not stay unimproved: they urgently need editing to at least turn into grammatical English. but this too can be done in mainspace if the notability is clear and sources are available. If it's done in mainspace, everyone who knows enough of the subject to look up the article can help. My own practice is never to submit an unedited machine translation without some improvement, at least the sort of improvement I did here. How much I can do without actually knowing the language varies by subject, but geographic entries are among the easiest; for anything not trivial, I work only if I have some actual knowledge, enough to resolve the ambiguities. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - we have articles on all sorts of localities in all nooks and corners of the world, a huge amount of which are stubs. In addition, this article can in fact be significantly expanded. --Activism1234 01:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. This is part of a nearly complete series on neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Neighborhood has historical significance. Marokwitz (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I have provided another source.So it notable enough.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Happy to be wrong on this one. Beastiepaws (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable place, and it has historical relevance, the page is sourced. --Carioca (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep- I or someone else could add info from the Hebrew article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 September 2012 (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.