Template talk:Neighborhoods of Tel Aviv

Request for comment about the notability of the neighborhoods listed in this template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Neve Barbur
• Azorei Hen
• Migdalei Ne'eman
• Ramat Aviv HaHadasha
• Kiryat Atidim
• Tel Baruch
• Yisgav
• Giv'at Amal Bet
• Menashiya
• Montefiore, Tel Aviv
• Ohel Moshe (neighborhood)
• Old City (Jaffa)
• Tzahalon
• Nahalat Yitzhak
• Neve Tzahal
• Yad Eliyahu

The articles listed are stubs with little or no content. Also, many of them are unreferenced or largely relies on a single source. I can't find specific guidelines regarding neighborhoods in WP:GEOLAND pertaining to neighborhoods.

I would like to request comment for the following issues:

1. What should be done with these articles? They were attempts by User:Shadowowl and others to delete some of these article or draftify them (move them back to draft space). However, the PROD was kept as it was assumed Shadow made them in bad faith without doing any BEFORE work. Also, Shadow's attempt to move them back to draft was also undone. That is why I'm opening the RFC to avoid going through nominating the individual articles for AFD, which is seen as disruptive. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
2. (RFC point added after User:Shadowowl and User:Icewhiz replied) How about the reference? A lot of them lack references or reliable ones. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep for Neve Barbur, Montefiore, Tel Aviv and Yad Eliyahu. AFD for Ohel Moshe (neighborhood), Old City (Jaffa), Nahalat Yitzhak, Neve Tzahal, Azorei Hen, Kiryat Atidim, Menashiya. PROD/CSD the others.  » Shadowowl | talk 14:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all. All of these meet the notability bar - either due to historic significance or due to present day coverage. They are stubby, but they could all be expanded beyond a stub.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  How about the reference issues? A lot of them lack references or reliable ones. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  They could all be referenced - a WP:BEFORE (in this case - an interwiki link away for most/all of them) should be performed prior to AfD/CSD. None of them have patent nonsense and they seem mostly accurate (if stubby).Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – I have initiated a discussion regarding canvassing to this discussion at User talk:Tyw7 § WP:Canvassing concerns. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Retracted postage at User:DexterPointy. I thought he had participated. I had the wrong AFD open on screen. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• AfD for Old City (Jaffa). There is already Jaffa which is sufficient. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

   Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old City (Jaffa) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  The Old city of Jaffa is quite distinct from the modern sub-city/borough of Jaffa.Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  The article on Jaffa includes the old city and, in fact, covers from 7500 BCE to modern times. It also has photographs. - The only oversight was not including Abouelafia.Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep all they have notability, you can expand them by translating the Hebrew articles. Clearly not to delete them. Sokuya (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all – shortness or lack of references is never a reason to delete an article, except in cases of patent nonsense (and other CSD-worthy criteria), serious BLP violations, and other extreme reasons that don't apply here. WP:GNG is not an issue here, these being significant statistical areas in the city, creating third party coverage by default. Having said that, in many cases adding content is easy even from sources like the media, and has been done before in cases where PRODs and AfDs happened. The Hebrew Wikipedia has much longer articles on these as well. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all per WP:GEOLAND criterium #1. Also these neighborhoods have entries in many important reference books. Please do not waste precious time of WP community with meritless nominations and discussions. All this energy was better used at improving the articles. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all. Neighborhoods are always notable, and these ones are backed up by references cited in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Norwegian mountains, too, except that those references are cited in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Trying to delete neighborhoods or mountains in the face of consensus is indistinguishable from vandalism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  Why the hell are we talking about Norwegian mountains? This RFC is to gather consensus about what should be done with the stubby articles. I also have concerns that these articles are reference-less. I have not nominated any to AFD, just gathering consensus about what should be done with them. It seems a bit inconsistent that several had been draftified while others remains in main space. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  Based on the posts of other editors, I think the consensus is that editors are encouraged to improve the stub articles, not to move them to draft space or delete them. In other words, the deletion attempts and draftifications were mistakes, and an editor should leave the stub articles left alone unless the editor plans to expand or improve the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  As I'm on vacation atm, I'm going to leave this open for about a week until I return home. This should also give time for stragglers to come and comment in the mean time. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep all. They all satisfy GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep/AfD - I think they all seem to presumptively satisfy GEOLAND. There could be a few that should go through AfD - I don't think any should be either PRODDed or CSDed (notwithstanding copyvio etc etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all per above. And one quite obviously does not file an RCF and then without awaiting the outcome send an article like Old City (Jaffa) to AFD because two users opine so. Sam Sailor 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• AfD additionally for: Neve Barbur, Migdalei Ne'eman, Ramat Aviv HaHadasha, Tzahalon, Neve Tzahal. These particular entries have been two-sentence stubs for eight years or more and are limited to such encyclopedic facts as 'is a neighborhood', and 'with white, cream and beige apartment buildings'. They could hardly be of interest or value to locals who live there, or others in the vicinity, yet alone the English speaking world at large. Wikipedia has different language sites for this. Content that may be relevant to Hebrew speakers does not necessarily mean that it is relevant to every language site on Wikipedia; as is the case here. Consequently, it should not be used as a justification to guarantee a place on the English site. Moreover, this is a slippery slope. Do we want to see similar stubs for every neighborhood in India and China, to name but two, that provide readers with absolutely no pertinent information? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The answer to that is WP:SOFIXIT, because that is a problem that can be fixed through editing. It would be much easier to expand those articles than to AfD them, and the expansion would happen more than twice as fast if editors did not have to respond to endless AfDs that have WP:SNOW chance of resulting in a deletion. If you want to see stubs on notable topics expanded, the best course of action is to ask someone to expand them (if you can't expand them yourself). There was a Wikipedia:Requests for expansion process. It should be revived in some form as a wikiproject. In the meantime, there are plenty of editors who are willing to do this kind of expansion. Some of them are here on this page now. James500 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    • They aren't notable. There is no desire to expand them (eight years and counting); hence my vote to delete.Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

      That is not policy. Ample soirces exist for every neighborhood listed here - they easily meet GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

      • In addition to the sources in the article, Neve Barbur, for example, can be expanded with these (assuming the hebrew name given in our article is the correct spelling). The 1987 book there, for example, says something about two libraries, if I read it correctly. James500 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep all. Neighborhoods have their own history even if just a short article is required to present it. It also takes some load off the city articles, which tend to become excessively long if they try to cover everything. Zero^talk 00:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all. Neighborhoods in Israel have more of a nationwide imprint than they do, say, in American cities. In Israel, neighborhoods sound out a familiar tune, similar to what the neighborhood of Harlem would have across mainstream America, but without its stigma.Davidbena (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Can be closed per WP:SNOW. gidonb (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all (Summoned by bot) Failure to update a stub in eight years isn't a deletion criterion. Why not spend the same amount of effort to post notices at WikiProjects Geography, Cities, Israel, and Tel Aviv instead, and maybe someone will improve them? Mathglot (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Already notified them of this RFC --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.