Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma'ale HaShalom (3rd nomination)


 * 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. –MuZemike 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ma'ale HaShalom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ok, here's the situation. The first nomination, nearly a full year ago was closed as no consensus. There were more users who argued to keep than to delete, based on the idea that there were sources out there somewhere but for whatever reason they couldn't find them, even after two relists at AFD. Then, basically nothing happened for nine months. No actual reliable sources that addressed notability were found. I renominated the article. The same arguments were used again. The closing admin closed it as keep but when challenged he more or less admitted the arguments to keep were in fact weak and not supported by sources. He suggested I allow some more time, a total of four weeks at AFD with a nine month period in between apparently not being enough for users to find sources. See this exchange on his talk page. The standard of verification has been met by the sources, but notability is not established. I know this is getting long but I'd like to go over them individually.


 * Google maps: Shows that the road exists and is in Jerusalem. No commentary whatsoever, just a map.
 * Entry in a travel guide to the streets of Jerusalem One sentence in a 407 page long book. A rather cryptic comment about the name of the street and nothing else. Since this is a comprehensive guide to streets in  Jerusalem, it is important to note that an apparent expert on the subject gave no indication they thought this was especially important compared to any other street in Jerusalem.
 * Entry on an anti-Israeli website Almost certainly not a reliable source, lists the street as one of many in Jerusalem renamed by the Israelis but offers no commentary whatsoever on why this street is particularly important.

That's all that anyone has been able to come up with after all this time. As advised by Cirt I gave a clear notification on the article talk page that I intended to renominate this if better sources were not found. He suggested I wait a week, I went one better and waited a month and no improvements have been made. The argument that sources must exist somewhere would seem to be an invalid one or those who keep arguing along those lines would have been able to find something better by now. I would add that I have done my own searching and have not found anything either, so let's keep the "wiki-philosophy" rhetoric out of this discussion please. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep In addition to my arguments that I stand by from earlier discussions, there are also several offline sources in Hebrew on this street that tell about the road, its history, and other information. It has been written about in Israeli newspapers and books. Sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable for notability when English-language sources cannot be found, and offline sources are surely good enough. Linda Olive (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Offline sources are fine, as are those not in English. Nobody in all three debates on the subject has claimed that they are not so I'm not sure why you are even bringing up that point. Possibly because you have not actually presented these sources. We need to know what they are as opposed to just taking your word that they exist. Please provide the names and publication dates of these newspaper articles,  ISBN numbers for the books, and any other information you may have about them so that they can be taken into account. Asserting they exist without offering any evidence doesn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Like the first two AfD's, I use common sense and judge the road that half surrounds Mount Zion as notable. The name "Ma'ale HaShalom" is just a post 1949 Israeli affectation.  The name likely has undergone many different language designations, variations and spellings, all in multiple characters.  Obviously these pre-date the internet and historic sources about the road are very difficult to find online. --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody has suggested that offline sources are no good, just that asserting that they exist without any evidence is not sufficient. Your comment implies that you have some knowledge of this subject above and beyond what is reflected in the article, if you could indicate where you gained that knowledge that would be great. I could argue that my cat was the first feline to climb to the summit of Mount Zion and is therefore automatically notable by association, but without any sources it is nothing but an unfounded assertion with no evidence to back it up. And of course I don't need to remind that you that notability is not inherited and passing by a notable location does not necessarily confer notability on a road. This is about proper sourcing, be it online or off, in English or not, we need something above and beyond what is currently presented to establish that this road is more notable than other roads, otherwise we could end up with poorly sourced, poorly written articles like this on every street on Earth. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And now we've got a user adding some sources, but they seem to be about a road that connects to this road. According to the map, Ma'ale HaShalom goes past the base of Mt Zion, and the "Pope's Road" referred to in these new sources is the road that actually leads up the slope. So, what looks like a fine improvement to the article is actually information on an associated, but different, street. Ironically that road may be notable enough for it's own entry as there is actually some detail on when it was built and why. And they've removed one of the previous sources because it discusses a gate, not a road, by this name. Given the level of contradiction I believe this article, if not outright deleted, should be sent to the article incubator until such time as someone can conclusively determine what the actual subject of the article really is. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Searching for sources under the name "Pope's Road" leads to plenty of sources that provide significant reliable coverage on this road, clearly enough to meet the general notability guideline. The article should still be titled Ma'ale HaShalom, since that is its legal name today. But it is undoubtedly the same road. Sebwite (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then how come the map and written descriptions that use that name show it going past Mount Zion while the "Pope's Road" actually goes up the slope? This article has had problems from day one, and it seems like every time somebody tries (in good faith and all that) to improve it it actually gets more muddled and confused instead of less. If someone could produce a source that states clearly that the Pope's Road and Ma'ale HaShalom are the same thing that would be great, but asserting that it is without providing any evidence to support that claim is not so helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the road does go "up the slope, from the base of Mt. Zion in the west, upward and around Mt. Zion to the level of the Old City in the east. Even the photo demonstrates a marked incline "up the slope."--Oakshade (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I just added four references to the article.  This topic is properly a part of the gazetteer as supported by WP:5, which is "fundamental principles" and is listed co-equal with policies.  I think that there is consensus here that even if no other policies or guidelines applied, WP:IAR and/or WP:UCS are applicable, and these are full policies.  is applicable and is a full policy, in conjunction with the WP:IAR-based essay, WP:UCS .  WP:GNG is not a key question for geographic notability&mdash;places on maps including city streets satisfy WP:GNG because cartographers (secondary independent sources) take note of such streets in great detail.  The point remains that WP:N is not satisfied just because WP:GNG is satisfied&mdash;whether or not WP:GNG is satisfied, the topic must be "worthy of notice".  Looking at the various essays about the notability of streets, User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people states, "Notable streets and roads can be divided into two types: those which are inherently notable due to some specific historical, geographical, or other quirk, and those which are notable simply by way of their prominence within a city or town."  In this case we have both historical and geographical inherent notability:  this is a road in the Biblical city of Jerusalem, goes past the Dung Gate and is close to the Kosel, past Oskar Schindler's grave, and leads to within 60 yards of the Coenaculum which was the site of the Last Supper of Jesus Christ, was upgraded for the visit of a Pope to the Coenaculum, borders the Old City, and is a part of Mount Zion.  Jerusalem has 800,000 people, so by the Grutness 50,000 rule, Jerusalem might have 16 notable streets.  All of the geographical essays agree that at least some city streets are notable, and there can be no question that if any city streets are notable, this street is "worthy of notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2011 (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.