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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Jerusalem[edit]

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

This page is against the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages for several reasons. There is one definite redlinkable article (although it is not redlinked) and one possible. However, it does not look like these articles are being worked on so this is just an unneeded placeholder that does not direct the reader to intended content. Furthermore, it goes into more detail than is needed to disambiguate the subjects (even though the subjects are directed to the same article), and the on top of that there is controversy over its accuracy. "Jerusalem of the West" might be an alright See also since there could possibly be some confusion and it is certainly related wording wise. "East Jerusalem" is the exact opposite wording wise but is related subject wise if looking at similarities of the legal issues. Axe tis disambig and bring it back when there are two articles (even then questionable) written that needs a disambig. I can see the use of this disambig in the future but it is nothing but trouble now. Cptnono ([[User talk:

Also MOS wise, there should not be multiple links in the same line. Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub article on the part of Jerusalem that came under Israeli rule in 1948, or else redirect to Jerusalem, as the situation was before August 2007. --Lambiam 01:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no deletion is required. Discussion of the fate of the page in terms of redirection or retention may be effectuated on the talk page. Chester Markel (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be a good stub or disambiguation page. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a strong argument for separating out discussion of West Jerusalem from the main Jerusalem article. Many more states recognise the Israeli claim to that part of the city than to the East but some do not, being able to discuss the West separately would prove useful. Similarly being able to have an article which explains what buildings are there would be useful. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the President of the United States has today suggested that a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be based on the pre-67 borders. An article documenting which parts of Jerusalem would fall within those borders woudl be informative.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2011 (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.