Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of European Jews in the Middle Ages

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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW as there are no delete !votes and little prospect of the trend changing. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of European Jews in the Middle Ages

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is redundant when considering the higher-quality content found in pages like History of the Jews in Europe, History of the Jews in England, and other similar articles. This page has substantial POV issues as well, concerns over which have been debated for a long time in the article's talk page. Specifically, it appears this page was forked from the bulk of other Jewish history pages in order to build a historiography that ignores the day-to-day lives and customs of European Jews in the Middle Ages in favor of undue weight on the atrocities that occurred from the fall of Rome to the Crusades. This nomination comes after efforts to improve the article uncovered these other articles making those efforts redundant. It would be better to remove this page and focus improvement efforts on the other pages. Lordbedo (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - not a valid policy based rationale. History of the Jews in Europe redirects back to here as the main topic, and is a small summary. History of the Jews in England is a very small sub-topic. The medieval history of Jews (in Europe) is clearly a notable topic. The POV concerns of the nominator that the article over emphasizes the many pogroms and expulsions during this period are with little merit (as this is the emphasis in many RS) - and are not a reason for deletion - deletion is not cleanup. The topic itself is clearly notable, with a multitude of full length reference works devoted to the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CFORK - The article will become increasingly redundant as we clean it up, and the POV issues are merited as has been discussed on the article talk page for nearly a decade. Notability of the topic is not an issue, and has not been mentioned as such. Lordbedo (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an appropriate topic for a standalone article with ample sourcing already in the article and plenty more books on the topic found via Google Books. Alleged POV issues should be addressed on the talk page, not via deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this topic is notable enough. While the main topic is History of Jews in Europe, there are more than enough bytes so that this is a valid sub article. Any issues on the article should be addressed on the talk page and not via TNT. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion on the talk page for some time - If you view it, you'll see us reaching consensus on how the article should be handled. Specifically, the plan was to focus on Jews in Europe from the fall of Rome to the Crusades. However, with the existence of articles listed above, and even more like Ashkenazi Jews, I'm having a hard time understanding why this isn't seen as a clear POV fork. Most other articles on the topic, while not particularly excellent, have due weight placed on the entirety of the topic - the circumstances of Jewish migration to Europe, the extent of their relationship with European governments and Christian/Muslim neighbors, their professions and customs throughout the middle ages, the evolution of Judaism itself over time, etc. This article has, from the start and for a long time, neglected nearly any mention of these important factors. As has been discussed on the talk page, to claim the extent of Jewish History can be explained through pogroms and expulsions is to push a POV. If it is a POV fork, then cleaning it up will turn it into a redundant fork, and both are precedent for deletion. If it is not a POV fork, perhaps I need to be enlightened.

Keep deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Calthinus (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTCLEANUP, and the usual concerns about how an eighteen-edit account knows how AfD works (also this red flag, an IP that seems to chime in on a discussion the nom created three days later, unprompted and out of nowhere). Nate • (chatter) 19:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be concerning that new users read how to use AfD before posting here (there's literally a step-by-step guide) . You can see the IP I used before creating the account in the talk page of the nominated article, as I disclosed it. History is a hobby for me, and I've used WP for a long time before deciding to get involved. I never saw a need before stumbling upon this article. Frankly I'm disappointed to keep seeing WP:NOTCLEANUP come up as a reason to keep it, especially because the very essay on bad AfD arguments this comes from advises against arguing "keep" solely on the basis that the article can be improved. Every article can be improved; it isn't the reason I've nominated this article, and it would be appreciated if all contributors to this argument viewed the talk page to see the cleanup efforts thus far. Someone should respond to my argument above to explain why this article doesn't count as content forking rather than continuously leaving non-argument comments to keep, or to argue ad hominem. Lordbedo (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a fork of the England article. As for History of the Jews in Europe, this is a valid spinoff and is much-much longer and detailed in relation to the period sub-section there. No article has been identified that this article is a fork of.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content fork, this is an article expanding on another article. There are tons of "see main article" in Wikipedia. The Middle Ages has enough information to break out from the main article into a larger one. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valuable point to discuss. In what way does this article "expand" on the other articles? I only see evidence to the contrary - A vast amount of information in History of the Jews in Spain, going all the way back to Jewish life under the Moors, is reduced only to a paragraph stating that Jews fared better in Spain for a while, and then a paragraph on the massacres and expulsions occurring centuries later. History of the Jews in Germany begins in 321. The nominated article begins its coverage on German Jews nearly a millennium later, immediately and exclusively writing on the persecutions and discrimination endured. I keep finding examples like this - One article written to provide a comprehensive description of the lives of the medieval Jewry, and this article, forking the same content but narrowing the scope to present a different viewpoint of medieval Jewish life. Per WP:CFORK - "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." yes, this article can be expanded to include what's missing (and I will help to do so if consensus is keep). But expanding the scope would just make it redundant considering all the other articles out there, so why not work on improving those? Lordbedo (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look let's be real here, there is obviously no way this is going to end up deleted. Don't waste your time. If you have problems with the article take it to its talk page, although I admit at this rate you might get a bit of side eye. --Calthinus (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also this reads as a WP:TLDR and WP:VERBOSE rationale; a lack of conciseness about why you'd like this article deleted plays into my vote!. And again, a 20-edit account should usually be so green that they don't know how to link to a WP: policy/essay, and saying that you've been here a 'long time' without somehow editing once before raises further alarm bells. If you have past accounts, please declare them. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Preserve--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep Valid topic. Perfectly normal to have articles on both "history of" a region, and articles on "history of" that region in a specific period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.