Deletion of Ain Jalut

Comment: I don't find the keep votes particularly persuasive; I think the merge votes accurately explain the situation. Additionally, to respond to the comment about disputes over content, I would say this is not a dispute over content. A dispute over content would be a dispute over what the article contains. This is a dispute about whether the subjects are distinct enough to warrant two articles or whether this is a ; that doesn't particularly have anything to do with content
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per |policy. It seems that what was once an intellectual discussion has descended into tirades, argument and |bludgeoning. Poor optics, comrades
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATDM||WP: BLUDGEON)

Comment: Clear  merge anything useful to Well of Harod
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: As you ask, as per nom and as per . Special:Contributions/81.111.119.153|81.111.119.153
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: to Well of Harod: There is a significant enough overlap in scope and content between the two subjects that this falls under . By , the name for the combined article seems to be {{tq|Well of Harod}}.{{pb}}It’s not like naming the article by the common name will assert that the literature referring to the place as {{tq|Ayn Jalut}} is POV-relegated to a lower standing because the article title is the other name; all names can still be shown prominently in the lead and all relevant content can be covered. We don’t need separate articles for every topic that has different names from different groups of sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Merging (WP:OVERLAP||WP:COMMONNAME)