Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomb of Jesse and Ruth


 * 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. This is one of those rambling AfDs that ends up being difficult to follow. The one thing that's clear is that there's no consensus to delete. There is some thought that this should be renamed, but I see no clear consensus to do that. If anybody wants to pursue the rename, please continue that discussion on the article's talk page; no admin interaction is required for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Tomb of Jesse and Ruth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POV-Fork of Tel Rumeida Huldra (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIZE which stipulates article size to be 30 kB to 50 kB. The Tel Rumeida article is already over 43 kB.  The WP:TAGBOMB job on this articl is bad form, seldom a good faith action and not appreciated. --Oakshade (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  07:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Perfectly reasonable to have stand-alone article, with link from tel Rumedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are almost no secondary sources, the information put there off the webpage of a settler group in Hebron which is not WP:RS. As it stands, the information is far poorer than on the page it was forked off from, consisting only of a list of several visitors who stopped to visit over several centuries. I.e. it's a list of visitors (not documented in reliable sources) and empty of serious content.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Taken aback by your comment, because sourcing on page looks acceptable.  Hoary travelers' reports can and do support notability, as do articles in major newspapers like the Jerusalem Post.  I admit that I had never heard of this place, so I took your word on the poor sourcing  and checked myself with a quick look at JSTOR, under "Tomb of Ruth"  just to check an alt. phrasing. Found: (“The Hebron Protocol”. 1997. “The Hebron Protocol”. Journal of Palestine Studies 26 (3). [University of California Press, Institute for Palestine Studies]: 131–45. doi:10.2307/2538174.)also (“ISRAEL-PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: PROTOCOL CONCERNING THE REDEPLOYMENT IN HEBRON AND NOTE FOR THE RECORD”. “ISRAEL-PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: PROTOCOL CONCERNING THE REDEPLOYMENT IN HEBRON AND NOTE FOR THE RECORD”. International Legal Materials 36.3 (1997): 650–666.)) called "Tomb of Ruth and Yishai" in these docs, which should be added to the page.  Frankly, my dear, I really don't give a damn who started the article.  Lots of articles on notable topics are stated by people with POV motives.  Although phrasing sometimes has to be changed for POV.  In this case, wirting is NPOV.  But The quesiton here is whether the topic is notable. In this case, it undeniably is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not about notability. The section at Tel Rumeida exhaustively covered what sources are available for the tomb's history, structure, politics. It has 18 RS secondary sources: this fork has 6 sources that pass RS, was created to list Jewish travelers who visited it. That is the only addition, several snippets from primary sources saying:'I've been there'. Ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems to be about WP:OWN on the part of Nom (User Huldra) and Nishdai. See here: .  But it is entirely usual to have articles about pilgrimage sites, and this one, as you say, is patently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It began as a POVFORK sourced from a settler website that fails WP:RS. Compare the sourcing and the (lack of) detail (other that a few notes re pilgrims) here to what the Tel Rumeida section has. The latter is detailed, and has 18 sources, this 6, and nothing was gained thereby. Nothing to do with WP:OWN, but with encyclopedic standards. Of course, if we do come up with some really good quality material on the history and archaeology of this tomb, one could expand that TR section into a fully independent article. I've searched extensively but cannot find anything other than what we already have. The only thing that could be expanded is mentioning that it is known not to be the tomb of either Jesse or Ruth, both mythical figures. But I don't care to do that. Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Its composition was fraudulent, using an unreliable website.
 * It has now only 4 RS-adequate sources.
 * All of the information it contains that can be sourced is available in the relevant section at Tel Rumeida, with a far more abundant scholarly apparatus of sourcing than what we have here.
 * In 10 days no one has been able to come up with any material to repair it, and demonstrate that the 15 citation needed tags can be replaced with proper references.
 * It is a POVFORK, made in defiance of WP:NPOV, since it suppresses, apart from my corrective edit, all material relevant to its Arabic background.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, even the most rudimentary search turns up more, .E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep 1. Places are usually notable. 2. There is no policy or guideline that says an article must have many sources, and those present are enough. 3. The size argument is a good one. 4. If this isn't about notability, as Nishidani says, then there is no room for a deletion discussion. 5. Even mythical figures (a term I disagree with and find quite disrespectful in this regards) have graves. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Historic structures and sites are perfectly worthy of having their own articles. Not a content fork in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename The reason for the lack of WP:RS is because the name is wrong. This structure is known as the Deir Al-Arba'in. As this diagram shows well [now added on right], these two tombs are just names given to two components of the wider structure. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Here is a source by this name identifying the building as the site of the Biblical episode / location where 40 witnesses watch as Abraham purchases the Cave of Machpelah.  Not at all unusual for old structures to acquire multiple origin stories (See:  Tomb of Absalom). Article needs expansion, improvement, but we knew that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no lack of WP:RS. Plus: In any event, this is an English encyclopedia, the name of the Tomb will be in English, with alt. names in other languages added if appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is no lack of WP:RS, why can't anyone find more than 6 here, whereas the section at Tel Rumeida has 18?Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nish, sweetheart, read comments above before commenting, I have linked ot a number of sources beyond those already in article. Many more exist: ; this one:  has real,, old-timey charm..E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have sources that are not in the Tel Rumeida section, and add them to the measily 6 in this article, by all means let me know. I'm amazed that those approving the retention of this article appear to not compare the detailed description in the Tel Rumeida article with the flimsy sketch here. Perhaps you should prove you have new information by writing up this stub, rather than boasting that it could be improved, with improvements that are not in the Tel Rumeida mother section. We have nothing new here, except a skeleton article that contains nothing the other article lacks, and which systematically ignores the Muslim history, which the mother section, per WP:NPOV managed to include. It began as a POVFORK to limit description to the cult of the Tomb for settlers in Hebron, and has remained so.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The question at issue on this page is whether this topic has sufficient notability to sustain an independent article, which would be linked from the long article about the Tel. Certainly it can and should be improved. You have said above that the subject is notable.   Time to close this ad keep and move on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of the many articles you have created that have been up for deletion, during the AfD process you have worked vigorously to expand the content of the actual article. Uniquely, despite repeated requests to do so and show you have new stuff here, you just sit on this talk page and promise it can be improved. So it remains with 6 sources, the other having over 20. I think that constitutes evidence your suggestions it can be improved are hot air.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nish's assertion is nasty and untrue.
 * I did not create this article.
 * I create many articles, very few have been deleted.
 * I sometimes rewrite or source articles I find here.
 * More often I just show the sources at the AFD discussion.
 * All of the statements I have just made are verifiable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All of the statements I have just made are verifiable.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The assertion that I created this article is verifiably untrue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite so. But you are failing to read. I stated that your practice in articles you created that are up for deletion is to improve the articles by working intensely to find and add sources. Uniquely, in this AfD, you are not doing what you do with your own articles invariably. You made an inference. If you can show that the article is not a POVFORK by actually editing in fresh material not in the other article, you may have a point. All we have here is promises, and an article that has all the appearance of remaining a stub, because it cannot say anything that the other main article has not said.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC) ]
 * Your argument is that if an editor sometimes works to improve an article that he wrote when it is brought to AFD, at all other AFDs where that editor gives his opinion that the article is notable, and searches out and brings sources to the AFD, but does not invest the enormous amount of time required to "working intensely to find and add sources" and improve the page - that editor must be lying when he states that the article has sufficient sourcing to support notaiblity?   Maybe you want to walk that accusation back.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We solve problems here. You say that this article can be better sourced than it is. I wrote the mother article, of which this is a trimmed down snippet. I've asked you to show, by edits, how it can be improved, and you keep making assurances.  The article from which this is derived has 27 mostly scholarly sources: this has 6 (actually 5)  sources, almost none page linked and 15 citation needed tags. In 9 days of discussion nothing has been done to show that the structural defects are remediable. All we have is promises it can be fixed. I can't find RS to resolve the failed sourcing tags. So, prove that you are not just idly boasting that it can be fixed. It's an unbelievable sourcing mess, systematically elides the Islamic and Christian traditions regarding the tomb, mentions some Jewish visits per WP:OR, when none of these defects are on the far more comprehensive Tel Rumeida page treatment. It's a sham and a scam.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is (apparently/perhaps) not about that compound, but about the tombs, and the structure is only secondary to them. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not correct. As the diagram above shows, the purported tombs are no more than small alcoves within the overall structure. This article is written to describe the "structure" as a whole. The fact that the title is "Tomb" in the singular instead of "Tombs" plural confirms this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A selection of English language scholarly sources calling the structure "Deir el Arbain" are below:
 * The Present Archaeological Outlook in Palestine, John P. Peters, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 1/2 (1921), page 10
 * Survey of Western Palestine, volume 3, page 327
 * Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1898, page 234
 * The Golden Horn, 1851, Charles Monk, page 148
 * The Leo Boer Archives containing a 1953 photograph (6.15)
 * International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (published [http://www.internationalstandardbible.com in 1939)
 * Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume 3, page 262
 * Ḥadashot arkheʼologiyot, Volume 114
 * Baedeker's travel guide, page 114
 * Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume 11, 1961, page 80
 * Sermons Preached Before the Prince of Wales During His Tour in the East in the Spring of 1862, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, 1863, page 167
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete
 * Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, you already voted. I've struck your double !vote heading.--Oakshade (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies to editors.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (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.