Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Nur Shams


 * 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 no consensus defaulted to keep. (Actually, pretty close to keep, we have some delete votes based on the old version). We need to take a break and go on. Thanks for expending the article. If move is still needed, RM can be started any time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Nur Shams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After stripping out copyvio for the third time, I figured out there is a fundamental factual error. I don't know what this is called, but it's certainly not called "The Battle of Nur Shams" anywhere else but here, and certainly not in the sources the material was lifted from, so for factual inaccuracy alone this should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete A Google search provides no evidence of such a battle, at least not under that name. Not to say that there isn't such a battle, but either the given name is wrong or the battle is so obscure that it can only be found in written sources, rather than online. But with no way to establish notability, no option exists other than delete. Safiel (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On reconsideration changing to neutral Improvements in the article in the 10 days since I gave my previous argument/vote have invalidated my previous argument. However, I am really not sure on keep/delete, so I am changing to neutral. Safiel (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find any sources on EBSCO, Gale, or Google. The location itself wasn't even established until the 1950s. I have a feeling that this is a case of mistaken name, but unless the real name can be found and the battle verified, I'm afraid there is no other choice... - Pax  Verbum  04:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - the best I can figure is that a series of minor skirmishes involving different people in different places has been combined and vastly overblown into a named battle in a single location. MSJapan (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep after reading E.M.Gregory arguments and improvements to the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * request that you take a look at completely rewritten sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep looking back to an old version  of the page establishes that a small battle (all battles in this war were small) took place.  Here:  is a reliable contemporary news account.  It was an attack on the armed forces of a legal government in peacetime, what we would nowadays call a terrorist attack and should be renamed, improved and kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except there was no "battle." Several incidents in different places and times were reported in news articles, yes, but there's no historical basis to call this a named battle.  I'm not sure why you want to bother to keep an article that you also want renamed and rewritten - that's effectively a deletion.  Moreover, title aside, on what basis is this not falling under WP:NOTNEWS?  It was reported in the news cycle, and that was it.  We have no other sources available other than single articles contemporaneously written.  The case for its "notability" was made by an editor who did nothing but copy and paste the entirety of the material into the article, and editorialize as to why it needed to be there; that editor also made up the name.  There has been no historical review or other third-party source that ascribes any notability to any of these disparate incidents, nor gives these incidents a name.  This is WP:ROUTINE, and that's just the way it goes.  Your personal opinion and inappropriate usage of historical transposition doesn't change that. MSJapan (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN; sourcing and expanding article now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding soruces now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also coverage at Anabta, where this ambush is mischaracterized.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename article 1936 Anabta Ambush.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and MSJapan. I also read that linked article, and on a side, am appalled at the dismal reporting. "Arabs" attacked? The reporters couldn't even figure out the actual nationality of the attackers? They also write in with a complete Jewish/"Arab" binary, forgetting this took place in an area known for having mixed-religion families and communities. wtf. Talk about simplifying a conflict to an almost offensive level. Yvarta (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the this article when I came upon it actually referred to the location as a "refugee camp" (as though there were refugee camps in Palestine in 1936).  "Arabs" is simply the word used by all media sources covering this incident in 1936.  "Palestinian" is an anachronism in this context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant this one, actually. The one you referred to as "reliable" earlier :b Yvarta (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, same one. Is there a reason this incident in your mind wouldn't be worth covering in a blanket topic on the British conflict in Palestine? If it isn't notable enough to include on that larger topic, that might be a hint there isn't a coverage to support an independent page. Yvarta (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This was an attack on a convoy of civilian buses by armed militants (the New York Times news report on the incident called it "terrorism" ) in which 2 soldiers guarding a civilian convoy and 10 (or 11, reports vary) Arab fighters were killed. We should treat it in exactly the same manner that we would treat such an event if such an attack happened today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

- I fully agree with you. The way we treat event articles is if they meet WP:NOTNEWS and fail WP:EVENT is to delete them. Your actual statement implies that you think all terrorist attacks are worthy of articles, and as long as you edit according to your personal opinion as opposed to following policy despite your various "feelings", "opinions", and "fascinations", you're going to continue to be a problematic editor. You apparently have yet to figure out that your opinion does not matter on Wikipedia if it isn't supported by fact. Also, before you turn around and complain, you placed yourself into this Afd after I specifically told you to stay away from topic interaction with me, so I don't want to hear it. MSJapan (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look at the sources that I have brought to the totally re-written page, or, if you prefer, run your own searches for it in RS.  I acting here in a transparent manner.  I found an article at AFD.  Sourced it, and re-wrote it as per RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This article was on a list of Palestine-related AFDs that I regularly check. I clicked, and found an extremely odd stub.  I am not defending the original article, a cut and paste monstrosity, but it had been edited  down to a 1-sentence stub that included the bizarre assertion that an attack had taken place near "a Palestinian refugee camp." In 1936 - a decade before such camps existed.    All that I did was look back at the original article, and with clues I found there I searched with keywords to see what did happen on this site on that date.  It was not at all difficult to discover a large scale ) 60-70 armed militants ) terrorist attack on a civilian bus convoy that rapidly escalated into a "fierce battle."  I suspect that other editors will be able to find more sources and improve the article over time, but I have expanded this into an interesting short article that includes quite an early air attack on militant/terrorist fighters in the Middle East.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note That the JTA article linked above refers to the location of this ambush as 3 miles east of Nur-el-Shems, Our Nur Shams, Tulkarm article obviously needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that at least 2 pre-existing WP articles discussed this battle, I have now linked them (Ibrahim Nassar, and Anabta).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, and possibly rename, per the convincing arguments made by EM Gregory, who has since added numerous sources to the article which now easily satisfies WP:GNG Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The criteria for events is WP:EVENT. And this fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: probably should be renamed to something like "Anabta school bus ambush" or something similar, but overall I think it is a viable topic following the addition of sources by E.M.Gregory. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't report every single incident. Firstly, no "battle" occurred. And secondly, the "ambush" doesn't seem to qualify as a notable event. I had a look at the sources beyond the paywall and it is clear that this will fail WP:NEVENTS
 * The sources are characteristic of the news-spike which happens during an incident. All of these are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and I'm sorry that doesn't satisfy WP:DEPTH.
 * I don't see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE being satisfied here. I don't see any sources analysing this particular incident in detail and showing any importance.
 * I don't see any WP:LASTING effects either - or secondary news sources would have discussed this battle years after it happened. (Which they won't because this was some minor skirmish).
 * Overall, I don't see a reason to keep this. The coverage is expected coverage but no indication that the event is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Lemongirl's assertions are simply incorrect, as demonstrated by sources discussed below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. I can see one source that too a print source no one can verify? And a pro-Israel advocacy website? Please, we need better sources than this. I will recommend you to read WP:EVENT again. It seems you don't understand the guideline very well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved from above as the editor hasn't, despite being requested twice. Was placed in between my !vote --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Major news sources now cited in article call it a "battle" and describe it as a notable "battle"  because it marked a significant escalaiton at that point in the 1936 Arab Revolt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a university press book to satisfy this demand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At least one lasting consequence now sourced on this page and on Abd al-Rahim al-Hajj Muhammad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep To refute the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE argument of the previous editor, there are sources from 2015 and 2016 in the article. The article should be renamed, but that should be discussed on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there are not - there is one academic article in a historical journal from 2015 talking about the events of 1936 as a whole. Everything else is 1936, except for an undated book with no author.  That's not the same kinsd of coverage as is required in WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.  I think you must be misreading retrieval dates as writing dates? MSJapan (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are these sources from 2015/2016? I can't see them at all. The journal article btw doesn't mention the incident at all. I have removed it from the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So sorry. You are right. Retrieval dates. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * However, AFD is not a question of what sources are already on the page, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- If the engagement took place, we could potentially have an article on it. I suspect that virtually every engagement of the Arab uprising was in the nature of an ambush, so that it will be small scale.  The question is probably more one of what the article should be called and whether it was big enough to be notable.  I observe that this is (so far) the only battle of the uprising to have an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note on post 1936 references. I am finding little reference to this incident in Zionist sources after 1936.  I have not checked Palestinian Arab  sources, although I expect that it can be found there, perhaps by searching with keyword Ibrahim Nassar (and variant spellings of that name)  since the WP article on him that discussed this incident before the article under discussion here was created.  I have linked the article to a Zionist website  unitedwithisrael.org, that posted a discussion about this battle in June 2016.  Mostly, however, academic discussions of this battle are found in sources covering the use of air power by the British in the interwar (between WWI andWWII) period, by scholars such as David Omissi, Thomas Mockaitis, and Charles Townshend.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sourced - update that Note Took a minute to pull a likely volume down from the bookshelf (checking a bound codex, imagine that). have now sourced discussion of this battle to a 2012 University Press book. I'm sure there are other sources, but, as early editors commenting above suspected, there are somany variant names applied to this battle on the Haifa Tel Aviv road on 21 June 1936, that an online search on the wrong keywords can make it appear to an editor that sources do not exist. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not checked Palestinian Arab sources, although I expect that it can be found there and I'm sure there are other sources. Umm no, WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. This is a pretty clear cut fail of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The fact that only advocacy websites (that too only pro-Israel ones) are mentioning this is a pretty good reason not to keep this article. The diversity of sources seems to be lacking here. And that's ignoring the fact that after a lot of search one contemporary source could be located - which btw is a print source and I have not been able to verify it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please specify where you have done "a lot of search(ing)"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I have NOT looked exhaustively; merely I sourced an orphan I found at AFD. I suspect that there are Palestinian or pro-Palestinian sources covering this because I found unreliable sources celebrating this incident as a victory over imperialist and Zionist forces (in the sense, I suppose, that Palestinian fighters held a substantial contingent of British regulars in check for many hours for what appears to have the first time), and I suspect that anti-Israel sources that can be cited on WP exist because the contemporary source I added is by a Palestinian writer, and appears in a book edited by an anti-Israel academic.   I suppose that this ambush  is unlikely to be written up much by Zionists because no Jews were killed although this was a summer large numbers of  Jews  were slaughtered in Palestine in a series of anti-Semitic attacks and pogroms.  What I can see that it is covered by some of the British military writers I mentioned, although I have not gone to those books and articles to source it.  I may make time at some point when I need to be in that archive for some other purpose (these are hard copy military histories)  Although I rather hope that those sources will be added by someone with an interest in and knowledge of the use of air power in counterinsurgency warfare in the 1930s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also suspect that all bios of Abd al-Rahim al-Hajj Muhammad discuss this battle, although I have sourced to only 1, article length discussion of his role, I have now liked this article to his page where this battle is discussed as a significant moment in his career as an insurgent commander.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closing editor each of the faults LemonGirl found in the article have been addressed, and sources provided.  Nom and editors who iVoted early in this discussion were operating under misimpression caused by the multiple names (and alt. transliterations) given to a battle that began as an ambush on a road near but not in several settled places.  Note also that several wikipedia pages already discussed the battle, and now link to it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing editor Umm, no my concerns haven't been addressed haven't despite E.M.Gregory's attempts to WP:BLUDGEON. Sorry but there is a failure to demonstrate where is the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and where is the WP:LASTING effects as well as WP:DEPTH. Continued coverage is clearly not satisfied with one source. No modern source discusses the event in detail. In fact, the modern source E.M.Gregory is talking about discusses it within 5 sentences. Heck, and that's like the only coverage if you discount the "Pro-Israel" advocacy website. Sorry, but this "battle" needs better sources than that. In addition, if reliable sources cover an event briefly in the context of another event with a wider timeline, so should Wikipedia. If reliable source deem a battle as less than important, so should we. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the book again, this incident is discussed again later in that book.  But this solidly sourced article does meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not ever modify my comments. Your comments are not supposed to be placed in between mine. This is called refactoring. Please remove your comments which you added in between mine. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you remove the comments you placed in between my !vote? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sources dug up by E.M.Gregory look like a very good start to me and passes the coverage requirements in WP:GNG for mine (multiple newspaper sources at the time and coverage in recent academic works etc). There may or may not be an issue with the name but that is for discussion elsewhere. Anotherclown (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the excellent work and arguments of  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep due to work done on article. Hiding T 09:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.