Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khirbet Susya

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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khirbet Susya

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

Duplicate of Susya Huldra (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The articles certainly overlap and should be merged.--Oneiros (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don´t think it is much to merge, actually. A user just registered, split the Susya-article into 3 articles *without* any discussion beforhand. I reversed the edit with the removal from Susya, but need others to agree to delete this, and the other new article: Susya, Har Hebron, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There was no discussion. My mistake! So your solution in undoing all my work and not even bother to explain why? Why those 3 different places, as close as they might be, should be in 1 article? How does it help the reader who is looking for the information? I brought the similar case of Carmel where it is split. Settleman (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Duplicate??? You put back material moved into other article when I split the original into 3 articles Susya, Susya, Har Hebron and Khirbet Susya. It should be 3 different articles like it is in other places such as Carmel, Har Hebron, al-Karmil and Carmel (biblical settlement) or in Hebrew wikipedia for Susya.

~~Can user Huldra explain why it should be 1 article? Every time you read 'Susya' you have to guess which one of the distinct 3 places it is referred to. Settleman (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep These seem to be different settlements, even though located more or less in the same area. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there has been a tradition of one place =one article, take a look at Amka: why should that be in 1 article then? (exceptions are made where there is a lot of info: say, we have Londinium and Anglo-Saxon London in addition to London). From what we know so far: the history of these three articles is intimately connected, that is why it should be one article. Huldra (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the history is so connected. Different places, different history. I saw nothing in Susya, Har Hebron that overlaps the other articles. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A better example is Katzrin and Katzrin ancient village and synagogue or the 3 different Kabri articles. Settleman (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which we are not discussing here. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Settleman & Debresser current Susya article is about controversial Khirbet Susya (mainly), then about ancient Jewish town, and a rest only about Susya, Har Hebron. --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think having separate articles on the ancient site, Palestinian village and Israeli settlement is fine. Huldra's claim that "there is a tradition of one place=one article" is entirely untrue, and she is well aware of the fact because she has worked on numerous articles on Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that had an Israeli locality established in their place (many of the articles in this category are duplicates). We also have several examples a third article on a historical site in the same location (e.g. Huqoq/Yaquq/Hukok). Number 5 7 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 23:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should have said one place=one article when there is no complete break in tradition. Typically, Ein Hod is one article, (and should stay that way, IMO), while the structures of Huqoq were never a part of the life of Yaquq (AFAIK: they were mostly buried under ground, while Yaquq existed.) This in stark contrast with Sysya; where the ancient structures have been used up through the ages by different people. Not that the present divisions everywhere on Wikipedia is perfect: e.g. Ayn Karim should obviously be a part of Ein Karem, IMO: one of the articles was started without community consensus, and now both articles are a complete total mess. As, I suspect, will these 3 articles be in the future. (If they stay as 3 articles, that is), Huldra (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - The logic is sound, yet, this isn't Ayn Karim/Ein Karem case where one article covers all history and another tiny article just says "Oh, by the way, it was depopulated by Israel" (Interestingly enough you edited both and it didn't occur to you until now the 2nd one should be deleted). A better comparison will be City of David located inside Silwan which has it's own article because the archaeological site is notable. Settleman (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment here. Not sure why this is 3 separate discussions instead of just one. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Simply add a trimmed history section to Susya, Har Hebron.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious attempt at ethnic separatism for three overlapping realities, to restrict the Palestinians to the dump the occupying authorities consigned them to, and cleanse the 'Jewish' site of any odour of 'Arabs'. According to the latest information much of the whole area is under Ottoman period Palestinian title, and that is from Israel's Civil Administration's resident expert.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this POV-fork was made by an obvious, and extremely disruptive sock. When did we start to reward liars and cheaters like that? Huldra (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, totally my mistake; I mixed "Settleman" up with "ISavedPvtRyan", (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93). Until anything else is proven, we all have to "believe" that Settleman is a brilliant new editor, (heh), Huldra (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "POV", and "disruptive editor" are WP:PEACOCK terms, and do not carry any more weight than a simple "delete as fork". By the way, I just want to repeat that this is not a fork, but an article about a different location. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a fork created by a banned editor, the fact of whose abusive meddling is being casually ignored by editors supporting his disruptiveness.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What should I do if another user deletes my comments? Settleman (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Map of the area showing the 3 different places

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all 3 articles; one is about a small town where people live, one is about a significant archaeological site; and this one is primarily about a land rights controversy over a small Palestinian settlement. 3 locations = 3 articles. But have a disambigulation line right at the top directing readers to other two places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2015 (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.