Battle of Amman (1970): Article title barely supported by any reliable source.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Jordan ,  and Palestine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Pointless content fork.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The clashes took place in several places other than Amman such as Irbid , Ramtha and Ajlun .  The nominator did not provide any evidence that the article is identical to Black September.  This discussion is unnecessary and it would have been better to focus on other matters.  1 , 2 3 , Dl.thinker ( talk ) 18:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Black September refers to all of these incidents.  Breaking them up into new articles with identical content is called Wikipedia:Content forking .  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 23:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK .  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 02:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Estar8806 : Can you elaborate how it is a CONTENTFORK?  You need to explain. -- Dl.thinker ( talk ) 03:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The conflict began in 1970 and ended in 1971, while this battle extended from September 6 or 17 until September 28. The Black September article is big enough. The creation of the article was based on WP:Splitting .-- Dl.thinker ( talk ) 02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article Black September isn't actually all that long.  The readable prose size is only 34kB which, according to WP:SPLIT , is not enough to justify a split.  Because of that, any efforts to split should absolutely be discussed rather than boldly done.  This article should be deleted, but I don't see any reason a split discussion can't occur (though I don't see any reason for a split).  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 04:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this is a CONTENTFORK, but not a POVFORK, then redirect or merge seems in order as an ATD.  Preserving history would facilitate split discussions, and also allow for editors to merge content or examine sources in the future.   — siro χ o 05:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] siro , what target article are you proposing?  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Target Black September .  — siro χ o 02:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick glance at the nom's contributions reveals that there is a potential conflict of interest.  The article is expandable and was still under construction when it was arbitrarily nominated for deletion!  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 02:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dl.thinker , please focus on addressing problems with the article that have been brought up, not by casting aspersions.  That is not a winning tactic in AFD discussions.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : Maybe you should direct this to that editor.  I did not slander them, on the contrary, I said what is clear to everyone.  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, you are better off focusing on the discussion rather than engaging in ad hominem.  Editors can be subject to discretionary sanctions when editing articles under WP:ARBPIA , such as this one.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 07:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - IMO, it's worth pointing out that this article could be expanded into a large article which can stand on its own: For instance, the battle for the city is discussed in some detail in books like Armed Struggle and the Search for State ; Divided City: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis ; Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 ; and Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace .  So there is enough content for a full overview focused only on this clash instead of the entire Black September.  Of course, the current article lacks this level of detail.  Applodion ( talk ) 12:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:Notability , for a topic to have its own article, it would need to have significant coverage in reliable sources.  I have looked at the mentioned books and none of them have significant coverage of a battle in Amman, other than being mere mention in the first book page 263 ; while second book is an autobiography; no mention of an Amman battle in the third book; and the fourth book doesn't mention a battle in its own right.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 13:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, I'm confused.  How do you not find the battle in these books?  In Armed Struggle and the Search for State , the battle is covered on pages 263-266; in Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 , the battle is discussed on pages 336-340, and in the fourth book it is covered in the "Civil War" chapter.  There are also newspaper articles providing details, like this one , this one or this one .  Naturally, there is an overlap with the wider Black September, but at least some sources see the fighting in the city as one operation within the overall war.  Perhaps one issue is the article's name; in different articles and books, the event is also described as "battle in Amman", "clashes of Amman", "clashes in Amman", and "battle for Amman".  Applodion ( talk ) 15:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see them but nothing about that content warrants a standalone article.  Wikipedia guideline speaking, notability is yet to be demonstrated by existence of significant coverage in reliable sources.  Every detail about the “battle” or clashes is covered in the Black September article.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it isn't.  The details on the battle itself, such as the back-and-forth clashes over certain locations in Amman, are completely missing from the Black September article (and would not belong into an article on a war anyway).  It's fine if you consider details on urban warfare uninteresting, but claiming that "every detail" of this confrontation is covered in the Black September article is just objectively wrong.  Applodion ( talk ) 09:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please show me which sentences or details in this Battle of Amman (1970) article that are not covered in the Black September article?  And please demonstrate how these details warrant a new standalone article, because they are so extensive that they cannot be introduced to the Black September article?  Also and most importantly kindly demonstrate existence of significant coverage on the topic as warranted by WP:Notability , such as for example a dedicated chapter on the clashes/"battle" in Amman, or even a subchapter?  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the aforementioned sources (as well as others such as Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict and Patrick Seale 's Assad and Abu Nidal ), the tactical planning of both sides for the battle as well as strategic dimensions are discussed: I.e., how long a battle would take, which forces had to used, which areas should be secured, who planned what and which group had advantages in which area.  This is not featured in detail in the Black September article, and would not fit there either way.  Then there was the actual progression of and conduct of the urban warfare, such as how the Jordanians attempted to retake PLO-held areas with tanks and artillery, and individual clashes for certain areas .  This article could also cover reports by the civilian residents of Amman, who certainly had something to say about their homes getting destroyed .  There were also the sieges of the two hotels, most importantly the Intercontinental Hotel, which are barely mentioned in the Black September article, but received substantial news coverage and could be covered in this article.  Applodion ( talk ) 12:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Intercontinental Hotel siege occurred in 1976 and is not connected to Black September, it could be mentioned if there's a reliable source connecting the two, but it should not be covered in the article.  This does not satisfy guidelines in WP:Notability , which are the criteria to deciding whether or not a topic deserves a dedicated article: 1-"  Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content ."  No significant coverage as demonstrated by lack of dedicated papers, chapters or even subchapters.  2- "Sources should be secondary sources , as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." which excludes all the New York Times articles mentioned.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 14:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is established.  We are past that point.  Your arguments are not satisfying.  You pointed out first that it was contentfork and later argument about notability.  There was a clear effort on both sides to impose control over the capital, as it is a center of gravity and includes state institutions.  A great article could be created on this topic and perhaps nominated as good.  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 15:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re.  the hotel comment by Makeandtoss : Just to note this, several sources I found stated that two hotels, including the Intercontinental, were besieged during the fighting in Amman in September 1970.  In fact, one of the journalists mentioned above mentioned it as well; these sieges were not the same as the hostage incidents of 1976.  Applodion ( talk ) 15:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting, didn't know that.  Point remains notability hasn't been established, and the effort in creating this non-notable article involves heavy original research.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 17:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fail to understand how dozens of sources providing details on this matter is original research.  Not every notable topics needs an entire book devoted to it to matter.  And it's not like that these sources just mention the clashes in passing.  The newspaper articles included as examples above, for instance, are almost exclusively about the battle.  Heck, one is even titled "JORDANIAN ARMY AND GUERRILLAS BATTLE IN AMMAN" .  Applodion ( talk ) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary sources cannot demonstrate notability.  For the remaining sources excluding NYT, secondary ones which are few, they don’t even have a subchapter dedicated, thus the content is only extractable via a sentence here and there; i.e. lack of significant coverage and lots of original research.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 00:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we fundamentally disagree on what primary sources are, and what constitutes substantial coverage.  For me, dozens of pages in several scholarly books constitute substantial coverage.  I don't think we will ever agree on this issue.  Applodion ( talk ) 09:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.  It's not what I think, and what you think.  WP:PRIMARY : "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event , and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved ".  IAll New York Times articles cited are primary sources.  The rest are not "dozens of pages" dedicated to the "battle" in Amman, but rather dozens of pages about the Black September conflict, which as the name suggests, is about the fighting that occurred in September 1970, mainly in Amman.  WP:SIGCOV : "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail , so that no original research is needed to extract the content. And again, per WP:Notability, notability is yet to be demonstrated by presence of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 10:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand quite well how Wikipedia works. "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events". The newspaper articles of the time didn't just report stuff, they also tried to analyze the situation ; being a newspaper article does not automatically make it a primary source. This is a question of interpretation, and you have a certain view, which I respect but disagree with. And, again, I stand by "dozens of pages". In the examples I gave, the focus is often more on what was going on in Amman rather than the "whole" Black September which also involved fighting in many other locations. In Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 alone, two pages are devoted to the planning of the battle in Amman, two more to a strategic analysis mainly focused on Amman, and the rest of the Black September section mainly splits its attention between Amman and the Syrian invasion. You consider this a lack in "significant coverage", while I would argue that this means the topic was being addressed "directly and in detail". Obviously, we interpret it differently. Anyway, we won't agree on this issue, and that's fine. People don't always have to agree. Ultimately, someone else might chime in and voice their support for your or mine position; then we will know whose interpretation was considered more logical. Running circles around each other isn't helping either of us; let's just wait for the vote to come in. Applodion ( talk ) 22:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. An analysis article in 1970 is still a primary source. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 10:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources : "Examples of news reports as secondary sources: [...] Analytical reports: [...]  This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information. " I would argue an analysis by John L. Hess , which is used as example above, qualifies for this. Applodion ( talk ) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the essay, not policy, that you cited: “An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down”. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 20:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I argued based on the essay, as Wikipedia:No original research does not properly define primary sources in relation to newspapers, listing one possible definition by Duke University Libraries as an example which could be used . And for your quote, please note the phrase "could be read".  Either way, we can both find arguments for and against our positions in the rules; they were written that way on purpose, to allow for interpretation and exceptions.  I again want to emphasize that I do not think your views are wrong; I merely disagree with them.  Applodion ( talk ) 10:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist given the new sources that have been brought into the discussion that imply a possible expansion of this article so that it is no longer a fork.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:29, 28 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus