Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rova Mevo Ha'ir


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Rova Mevo Ha'ir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a proposed building project that still doesn't seem to have happened. I don't believe it's notable enough for an article. Number  5  7  10:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly rename to "Knisa La'ir" - it has changed in Hebrew to רובע הכניסה לעיר. This is still live, and it seems they are actually breaking ground now - .Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per soruces brought by Icewhiz above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify Probably will be notable but still largely WP:CRYSTAL for now as are all the sources about what will be built - I am relying on machine translations so I would reconsider if or  or another editor can point to the specific source that says construction has already started and add this to the article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I see here - (cornerstone + work on a tunnel) and here  (building permit for one of the buildings) - some construction has started. The planning of this thing dates back to 2009 or so. I'll note that this is a municipal driven plan (with entrepreneurs doing various sub-parts - the district plan is municipal, individual companies do different buildings) - so concerns of PROMO are less of an issue (and most coverage I see is not promotional driven).Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that we have many articles about proposed developments, see: Category:Proposed infrastructure by continent. Articles about proposed infrastructure improvements are NOT regarded as CRYSTAL and it is NOT necessary that a project be built - or for construciton to have begun - for a proposed development to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be, but it is CRYSTAL. What content is there to add to the article that isn't CRYSTAL? Most of what is in there now is CRYSTAL also. The fact that a project has been proposed isn't enough to make it notable. Yes, proposed developments could be notable - if there is a lot of significant in-depth coverage about legal troubles, or financing problems, or opposition, etc. But all I see here are statements about what is planned to be built and statements from politicians about how great it is. Not really enough yet for notability, and no rush. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have entered this nomination under a misconception, assuming that a project has to go forward to be WP:NOTABLE. Many editors make this assumption when they first encounter an article about a proposed infrastructure improvement.  In fact, a well-documented, well-sourced proposed infrastructure improvement can be notable in the way can topic can be notable - even if no shovel ever breaks ground.  There is value in keeping articles on projects that never got anywhere, such as  The Boston Museum, and United States National Slavery Museum, and Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States.    In this case, the sourcing of the project appears to be sufficient to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it should be deleted, just moved back to userspace until there is actually content for the article. The entire article as it stands is WP:CRYSTAL as in Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball, and the sources that Icewhiz posted don't add much to that. This article isn't ready for mainspace yet. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY, A few English language sources have been added to the page, many more are available. The best search term in English is now "Jerusalem Gateway" which seems to be the term now in use for the development of this neighborhood and the transit systems connecting Jerusalem to the coast. Article ought to be Moved to Jerusalem Gateway.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with move recommendation - seems to be the COMMONNAME in English (more than the transliterated Hebrew alternatives). Some of the English sources also make clear that construction has started.Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are now sufficient sources.  DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 25 February 2018 (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.