Talk:Canaanites

Redirect or article
I am pinging the editor who turned this page into a redirect, the editor who reverted it and editors who participated in Talk:Punic people.

I do not think this insubstantial article is a valuable addition compared to the redirect to Canaan. What do others think? Srnec (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Hopefully Canaan can be a root article for a whole clutch of sub-articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Canaanites is really a term for a variety of closely related peoples (Moabites, Ammonites, arguably Israelites and Phoenicians too). The subject is better handled at Canaan.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ermenrich summed it up. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree per above. Carlstak (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Insubstantiality" is not a reason to redirect, it just means that the article needs to be expanded and improved. Editor2020 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether a person looking for information on the Canaanites is better served coming here or to Canaan. If the latter, then "insubstantiality" is most certainly a reason to redirect. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that we are cannibalizing the other article now. Wonderful. This is not useful and there is a 4–2 !vote against the existence of this article. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just separating information into the different articles to make this one not insubstantial. Editor2020 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but moving material from A to B cannot be "a valuable addition". Srnec (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I recently revived the Canaanites article which had been redirected to Canaan and have been moving Canaanite information which was at that article here. So, should this article be kept or merged into that article? It's been long enough and I have done what I can for now, so if the result is remerge, I won't resist.Editor2020 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Editor2020 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You subverted the whole purpose of Srnec's survey—not very collegial. Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We were unable to reach concensus, so I moved the information that was at Canaan to this article, where it would have been without the redirect. I asked everyone to review this article to see its current shape and decide whether we should keep it or return the article to a redirect, promising to go along with whatever consensus is reached. No disrespect to Srnec was intended. Editor2020 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I read it, it is 4–2 for restoring the redirect (i.e., merging), although I was hoping for more participation. As I see it, asking readers to decide if it is "Canaan" or "Canaanites" they are interested in is not helpful. It would only make sense if the Canaan article were reduced to geography. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * While 4 to 2 is hardly a consensus, and I too was hoping for more input, Ill go along with this. Editor2020 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)