Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murcia jewish community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Merging can be done by editoral process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murcia jewish community

Murcia jewish community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Appears to be a culturally significant community ... but let's see more sources. Blueboy96 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I question the reliability of the two sources. The first appears to be a personal web page with no editorial oversight. The clip on youtube should not be linked to for copyright reasons, but the original program could be used if cited correctly. Marasmusine (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

the vid on youtube is property of a synogogue in madrid Ill get permission

Ill improve my sources to include the festival of 3 cultures in murcia which includes this very community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia comunidadjudia (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • COnsidering how slight both articles are, this should be merged into the main article on the city. There is no mention of this in the city's article at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article conveys quite relevant (and for this reader somewhat surprising) information, i.e. that at least one Jewish community persisted on Spanish soil even after the Alhambra Decree and the persecutions that followed. This information should, in my opinion, be reliably sourced (that's the key point obviously), and, on that condition, preserved and expanded. Whether keeping this article is the best way to proceed is another matter. I misinterpreted the article's weasel words.L'omo del batocio (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I edge towards a merge or a re-write it isn't current form only 50% or so is material that could be reliably referenced and is not WP:OR (no disrespect to the author) however as per omo del batocio's comments above, the topic appears to be notable, even if the current form of the article is not quite up to scratch and has bad sources. I would therefore be more inclined to save the topic and the article with a re-write (or a merge into the article on the town) than loose it and potentially a newbie user to a deletion. SGGH speak! 09:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (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.