Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maghrebim


 * 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 Absolutely no doubt about the notability of the subject. It is not, as the nom contends an invented topic. a A simple Google Scholar search confirms that. As to S. Marshall's legitimate concern about the proper content and history: Sort that out through article improvement and editing. Mike Cline (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Maghrebim

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A mostly invented topic using a medieval Hebrew term for its title. Googling "Maghrebim" shows websites that are Wikipedia mirrors or copies of Wikipedia. Until recently was a small article, then a single editor (using several IPs and one userid) copied in a huge amount of material without attribution or GFDL compliance from other Wikipedia articles, such as Jewish exodus from Arab lands, Moroccan Jews, Tunisian Jews, Berber Jews, etc. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Comment:) The article Maghrebim is very important, because although North African Jews are largely part of Sephardi Jews and Mizrahi Jews , they still differ themselves from their other Jewish counterparts and share similar cultures and an important and similar History (French Colonization etc..).Ekarfi13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.185.48 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nomination is confused. This topic has been of utmost importance to the Jews for several hundred years. It makes no more sense to delete this than it does to delete the Maronites or the Melkites. - Minnowtaur (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "This topic has been of utmost importance to the Jews for several hundred years."? Are you making a joke of some sort? Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: arguably, could be retitled "Maghrebi Jews" as we've migrated other similar titles. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: in the event that there is a decision to delete, we need to refactor and keep the material, since the objection appears to be that bringing this together under a single heading is synthesis, not that any of the material here is incorrect. But, again, it seems to me that the Jews whose descent is in North Africa prior to the diffusion of the Sephardim into that region constitute one of the distinct populations of Jews, and merit an article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But "Maghrebi Jews" simply means "Jews from the Maghreb" - there's nothing in this article that wouldn't also be in the Tunisian Jews etc. articles. Also, for example, Moroccan Jews consider themselves to be Sephardi, not "Maghrebi". These groups either consider themselves Sephardi, or Mizrahi, or "Tunisian" etc. This article is essentially a dictionary definition at best (aside from all the material that was copied to it from other articles). Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sephardi is a broader category. Maghrebim are Jews from North Africa, while Mizrahim are Jews from the Middle East. Both are Sephardim. Moroccan, Tunisian, Algerian Jews are all Maghrebim. We should have articles for all of the above just as we have articles for Europe, Western Europe and France.Minnowtaur (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Sephardim are Jews whose ancestors were exiled from Spain, and Maghrebim are not "Jews from North Africa". Egyptian Jews are from North Africa, but they are not "Maghrebim". Maghrebim are Jews from the Maghreb. Nothing more. We already do have articles on all these groups. Explain what one would write about Algerian Jews in the "Maghrebim" article that one would not find in the article about Algerian Jews. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The same as there are articles about Russian Jews ,German Jews, Jews of Ukraine, Jews of Poland when they all are Ashkenazi Jews. Ekarfi13 15:31 , 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ashkenazi Jews article doesn't just copy the contents of the Russian Jews, German Jews articles etc. If this article is retained, all that copied material will go. Material will have to be uniquely about "Maghrebi Jews", and refer directly to the topic. Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep An absurd nomination. Could certainly use more citations and sources though. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete present article and write a new article, Maghrebi Jews, per nom. As it is, all the information from parallel articles about Tunisian Jews, Moroccan Jews, etc., has been dumped here. This article should discuss the unique cultural designation of Maghrebi Jews and no more. Yoninah (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for a number of reasons: 1. The article and the term it's about, albeit from past times, is an accurate description of Jews who come from the Maghreb (that's what "Maghrebim" means in Hebrew.) 2. User  was the original creator of this article and he has a record of reliability and seriousness in these kinds of topics. 3. The article has been in existence since 20 May 2004  well over six years, and during that time no one thought it was problematic. 4. In fact, the nominator has had an ongoing objection to this article, mainly his dissatisfaction with what appear to be pro-Arab views   (2005), which still needs further research but should not be the basis for the deletion of an entire article. 5. Finally, while citing and bringing material from other articles may not be the way to burnish and furnish an article, it is by no means "OR" either. So for now, this article should remain and be improved upon. If we have waited six years to get to this point, we can wait another six to see more improvements, especially if other concerned editors will be notified and brought in. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If the result is a pure "keep", this article will need a very complex history merge in order to preserve attribution.  The copy/paste additions represent a significant housekeeping problem.  But on the other hand, the problem with this article is not the fact that it exists—I think there's a consensus here that Wikipedia should have an article with this name—but rather with the nature of this particular coverage.  Therefore with a history merge correctly performed it can be fixed by regular editing.  So with deep apologies to the closing admin for giving them such a dull, boring task fixing the history, I can only recommend that the article is kept. But there may be a way out: would it be possible to fix attribution by simply restoring to an earlier revision and deleting the copy/paste additions with revdel?— S Marshall  T/C 23:33, 29 June 2010 (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.