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 an apparent keep. Cleanup, rewrites, and stubbing should be handled through the normal editing process--feel free to be bold in the future. --jonny-m t 07:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering of Israel[edit]

Subject is notable, but the article is mostly original research, with text incorporated from this source of questionable reliability. The article freely associates biblical stories with modern events such as the Balfour declaration and the Six-Day War. A merge with The Return to Zion has been proposed, but I'm not sure how that can be done. Nudve (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Return to Zion. Hellno2 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although Gathering of Israel might be a more appropriate name than The Return to Zion for this subject. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Return to Zion currently describes the return from Babylonia and construction of the Second Temple under Ezra and Nehemiah two and a half millenia ago, while this article describes contemporary events in the context of a religious perspective connecting them with Biblical prophecies. The subject matter -- claims that the contemporary return of Jews to the Land of Israel reflects Biblical foreshadowings and has religious significance -- is certainly a notable one, and the subject is different from the previous return in the days of Ezra and Nehemia. In addition, the generally Christian perspective the article reflects is also distinct from the subject matter of Religious Zionism, which reflects a Jewish religious perspective on the religious significance involved. At first blush the subject-matter appears notable and a reasonable candidate for a stand-alone article if the title were changed to reflect what seems to be its scope, Christian perspectives on the religious significance of the contemporary return of Jews to the land of Israel. Of course a merger could be argued for, and I agree that the article could be better sourced. It might for example present a more balanced approach to different Christian views. In its present state it might be better off stubbified unless it can be substantially re-written. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - One suggestion would be to have a brief, general summary article on the religious significance of the contemporary return of Jews to Israel with links to more specific articles including the Religious Zionism article, the Haredim and Zionism article, one or more articles on Christian perspectives, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, and then merge what is not into The Return to Zion and/or create Christianity and Zionism per Shirahadasha's suggestions above. No need for duplicate articles. IZAK (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and write to so to indicate the perspective. There is more than one possible way in which the religious significance can be seen,and thisis one of them. In practice it will be best to keep them separate to avoid confusion. One article trying to explain them all is probably beyondwhat we canaccomplishclearly. DGG (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is agreed that article's subject should be the perspective, I would definitely change the title to refer to the perspective, e.g. Christianity and Zionism, Return of Jews to Israel in Christian theology or something similar (perhaps an even narrower title if only a particular Christian perspective is being covered). An article with a general subject title that is actually describing only a single perspective would be inapporpriate, unless the title is a phrase closely associated with the perspective in the public mind. I don't think that's the case here. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to The Return to Zion per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write (Kibbutz Galuyot - is the most popular term - see Google). The reason given for the merge was a lack of reliable source. Well, merging to different topic-article isn't going to improve the reliability of the sources. Add more sources to "Gathering of Israel" or re-write a new article of "Gathering of Israel" that does have reliable sources.

Second, the article "Gathering of Israel", though an interesting one, does not focus on the content of the real issue of "Kibbutz Galuyot" - what Moses said, what the Rambam said etc - as the Hebrew article does. It needs to be re-written, in order for people to understand what this "gathering of israel" is all about. I don't think the current article (that is not focused on the issue) is good enough for anybody to determine anything on the subject of "gathering of Israel".

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far I like Shirahadasha's suggestion best. Unless someone can rewrite the article within the next couple of days, I think stubbification to one-liner is the thing to do. -- Nudve (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to rewrite the artice, as Shirahadasha and Nudve have suggested. But it will take me a couple of days to so. I'd like to translate this from the Hebrew wikipedia article that has been there for a while and is considered to be a good one. i'd like to rename the article "Kibbutz Galuyot" that is the most popular term of use on the subject (see google) as well as to match the content of the article I will write about.

I'm new here, so somebody needs to tell me how to I get a permission to do so? Is there any administrator that can give me such permission? What is the process ?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's the spirit! What I would suggest is that you start working on the article in your Userspace. Meanwhile, when this AfD expires, we'll stubbify the article. Then, when your article is more or less complete, simply rewrite it by cutting it from your userspace and pasting it unto the article. -- Nudve (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nudve! I'll start working on it. If I have any further questions - I'll turn to your talkpage and post my question there.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend against using the Hebrew title; this is the English language Wikipedia. Unless you've confirmed that that title is the most common usage in English language sources, you should use an English title. Using Google's advanced search allows this restriction; I get about 44,000 results for "gathering of Israel" versus 6,500 for "Kibbutz Galuyot" or 4,000 for "Ingathering of exiles". GRBerry 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll use the English title "Gathering of Israel", as you have mentioned it to be the most popular use on google.

By the way, how do you use this "advanced search"? How do you get those numbers? - I'd like to know so I could determine on future articles that that will write about?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en is my link. In English, the link to the advanced search page is immediately to the right of the search box on the main google.com page. Google books, google news, google news archives, and google scholar all also have advanced search pages as well. Precisely which advanced search tools are available varies from version to version, for example google scholar has filters by broad subject categories. Be careful with using the google search to determine the most significant topic for a given set of words or title for a given topic, we've seen elsewhere while trying to sort if a given topic was the predominant result for a given name that with essentially simulataneous searches it can give US users very different results than UK users with both different from Australian users. GRBerry 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you GRBerry.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2008 (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.