Talk:Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank

Merger proposal
Does this deserve a standalone article? --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Merging makes sense. Zerotalk 00:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: No, it doesn't deserve its standalone article, and yes, merging makes sense Huldra (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge.Davidbena (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - certainly passes notability threshold, so keep it.GreyShark (dibra) 06:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: given the size of this article as it currently stands it clearly makes sense to merge. The annexation article clearly needs to include a section on disengagement and at the moment there is just no enough here for a main article link to be provided. Ebonelm (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support selective merge of this brief, ill-sourced article to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, target article is not overlong and this information is more intelligible amd useful as part of the larger topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The topic could deserve a standalone article, but the article as it is now is not very good either as an article or as a stub. It should either be cleaned up and expanded substantially (if someone has time) or just merged into the other article. If the merging option is selected, I don't think it should prejudice against recreation of this article if someone is later sufficiently motivated to do a good job. OtterAM (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion should be revived. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merging, the article has narrowly two paragraphs about the disengagement, the rest is only background to it. Should be merged. Doodoo Bo (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merging, the occupation already redirects to the annexation, so that article could easily be renamed and encompass both ideas. User:Artoenedits 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The annexation in 1950 and the disengagement in 1988 both pass notability threshold and took place in entirely different political and legal circumstances. Each of them deserves a proper article. The fact that neither article is properly written is reason to expand both, not to merge them. YR on wiki (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The topic is notable for an article, it is simply too short. Instead of merging, more information should be added to this article. It is worth noting that the Jordanian control ended in 1967, while the disengagement was in 1988.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The separate article on the "Disengagement of Jordanian forces" is justifiable (notable) in itself, whereas the other article deals more broadly on the period of Jordanian occupation of the western parts of Palestine (1948–1967), which had previously been an "undivided" country (whole Palestine) occupied by foreign powers (Britain, Ottoman Turks, Mamluks of Egypt, etc.).Davidbena (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge. No WP:RS uses the title of this article to describe anything. The article would need significant reworking and a new title, so easier to merge. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge. The disengagement is a natural end to the annexation, and is reasonably discussed with it. Furthermore, event the brief Jordanian annexation of the West Bank section already contains better on-topic material than the existing Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank article. Klbrain (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)