Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old City (Jaffa)

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old City (Jaffa)

[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)

There is already an article called Jaffa, which could be seen as a duplicate of this. Nominated as per suggestion by User:Veritycheck here --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may also want to particiate at the RFC of Israeli neighborhoods at Template talk:Neighborhoods of Tel Aviv --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable sub-part of Jaffa. Jaffa itself is pretty large - and most of it is quite modern. The old city refers to the walled (or rather - mostly previously walled) historic section, and is a major tourist destination. The hewiki articles are distinct and well developed - old Jaffa / Jaffa. Sources in English are available as well - e.g. - [1][2][3].Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sokuya (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already Jaffa which is sufficient. It includes the old city and, in fact, covers from 7500 BCE to modern times. Additionally, it has several photographs, drawings and paintings of the old city. Old_City_(Jaffa) is redundant. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the Old City is just one of ~15 neighborhoods in Jaffa, and one of the smallest at that. I don't see how it can be considered a duplicate. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is already mentions of the old city at the article Jaffa and this stub doesn't tell anything new. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- An article on one of the various neighbourhoods of Joppe, i.e., the Old City of Joppe is quite estimable and necessary. Now, some may object to some of the data included on this article about a neighbourhood that happens to be a critical historic site from Roman, early Christian, Crusader, and Napoleonic times, but deletion is not cleanup. XavierItzm (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect for now - this would be a perfectly legitimate individual article, but as it is, it is an unwarranted contentfork - there isn't any point breaking these things out unless there is actually some content for it. Notability isn't the issue, it's WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Put money where my mouth is and did some early WP:SOFIXIT work. Obviously there's much more available - I self-generated, but there's all the content in the hebrew article to expand it. Have added some sources (though they are there to support specific things, but a couple have Sig Cov) As I said, notability is covered and my previous argument no longer holds water. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:GEOLAND criterium #1. Also one of the prime tourist attractions of Tel Aviv-Yafo. We should consider a rename to Old Jaffa. It's the only only positive I can find in this nomination. gidonb (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick flick through some sources, (about 3/4 in English), had about 40% as the Old City, about 30% as Old Jaffa and 30% used both. Suspect a bold change probably was unjustified, but a discussion on it is probably worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk)

Thank you, Nosebagbear. My suggestion was discussing the name. Without prejudice. gidonb (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Old Jaffa satisfies GNG and GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Many of the sources which come up are travel sites, and the sourcing isn't good now, but the Hebrew page appears well-developed and sources for the neighborhood should be available. SportingFlyer talk 07:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG as shown by availabel and added sources. Not a good nomination when the community had just started discussion at Special:Permalink/853396804#Request for comment about the notability of the neighborhoods listed in this template. Sam Sailor 16:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems to be a duplicate to me as the nomination version kinda repeats what's at new Jaffa. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is quite standard to have one article on the historic part of a city, and another on the modern city, as with Old City (Hyderabad, India), and Hyderabad. See list of such at disambig: old city. in this case: Old City (Jaffa), expanded in the 20th century into become Jaffa, which was then incorporated into the modern municipality of Tel Aviv. But the Old City is both of historical interest and is a tourist mecca - almost all "old cites" are. We keep all 3. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable topic even though there is a lot of overlap with other articles. Such overlaps are commonplace across the project. Zero^talk 00:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer and EM Gregory. JC7V-constructive zone 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD can be closed per WP:SNOW. As a clear WP:GEOLAND criterium #1 article, this AfD had no merit from start, regardless of references, also per WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2018 (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.