Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday Market (Amman)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Friday Market (Amman)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Borderline G11  // Timothy :: talk  09:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Jordan.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - These two sources appear to give significant coverage, and look independent and reliable to me. There is also this, although the coverage is less significant. Also these two, although they are less reliable and have an interest in getting you to visit. Nevertheless, the first two/three should be sufficient for GNG. Also, there may well be offline/non-English sources out there (WP:NEXIST) which are less likely to be picked up by Wikipedia editors, so I'd be more lenient with something like this to counter systemic bias. Agree that it could do with cleanup regarding its promotional tone, but that is no reason to delete. WJ94 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep  and why:
 * Hello, while I get your concern most sources are in Arabic look up سوق الجمعة عمان if you want to see them so you wouldn’t see them if you looked them up in English here’s some links:
 * 5.1K reviews (can’t find one right now)
 * https://www.urtrips.com/friday-market-amman/
 * https://alrai.com/article/668712/محليات/الأمانة-تنقل-سوق-الجمعة-في-العبدلي-إلى-رأس-العين
 * https://www.omallqura.com/friday-market-amman/
 * https://www.ammonnews.net/article/246963
 * that should satisfy GNG as for NEVENT it is pretty widely talked about for tourist sites (see second link) and there is significant civilian coverage. With 5.1K google reviews Here as well as 10K Facebook followers. Ik these are secondary sources unreliable but they show the importance.
 * Also note that it is present on the Arabic Wikipedia meaning it fulfills these requirements at least over there  102.184.181.244 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hi, thanks for the concern here is some extra sources I've found in Arabic (note I was the IP user that replied beforehand):
 * Reliable sources for WP:GNG (translated title):
 * (Traditional Ammani Markets)
 * Top 5 Markets in Amman we recommend
 * Cheap Markets in Amman
 * Intellectuals - Friday Market (Rough translation)
 * As for WP:NEVENT here are more secondary sources:
 * Jordanian guys take me for lunch in Amman 🇯🇴 (Friday Market)
 * What can you buy for 30$ in the Friday Market
 * If you need more check the IP user's post (which is me) Chacabangaso (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of markets. Coverage given for this article is not sufficient to meet WP:NEVENT, and besides, two of the so-called secondary sources mentioned by the article creator are YouTube links. Someone walking around videoing a market is not reliable coverage, it is a SELFPUBLISHED source and so unequivocally not reliable or an indicator of notability. Some coverage does not make a flea market notable. The article is woefully sourced and I do not see sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:VERIFY for most of the content. Keep voters are literally relying on Google reviews and youtube videos to demonstrate notability, and neither of these sources are fit for purpose. Actual secondary coverage is shown here, and this is not significant coverage because it has a mere sentence or two about the actual market and mostly is just dates, times, and directions. This is the epitome of trivial coverage. I am very concerned about statements such as: The market is also a major retailer of used garments. Oftentimes buyers find sellers selling them for only one dinar. With the maximum price usually being around 10 dinars for heavy winter coats. There are many theories for the low prices ranging from buying "scraps" from European manufacturers to buying them in bulk from charities. However, they are not strongly supported.. Huh? This is the definition of original research. "There are many theories for the low prices".... This entire article is a basket case of policy violations and is not able to be cleaned up properly due to insufficient sourcing. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This belongs over at Wikivoyage: Amman, in a sentence in the "buy" section. Not Wikipedia. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please address WJ94's arguments Jack4576 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did address them. It’s not notable. The sources listed are directories from tourist websites, not significant coverage in independent sources. “Per above” isn’t addressing my concerns either. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a local newspaper writing about what birds are sold there isn’t good enough either. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I understand now that the YouTube links arent trustworthy. I'd delete that if possible alas you can't edit stuff. I was under the impression NEVENT was for notability of an event so I wanted to illustrate its place in culture which part of that is YouTube videos, which I do understand is unreliable. Such the claim of that line of text being original research isn't true, it came from this source. I am not opposed however to moving it to WikiVoyage if needed (When I made this article I didn't know about it). As for WP:VERIFY I'll look further into those sources now but they seem to come from people who work in the market and those who visited them. Regardless, I'll look further into them. Chacabangaso (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it’s unsourced without appropriate source to text integrity then it’s original research. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the quality issues aren’t the argument for deletion because AFD isn’t cleanup. No amount of editing however can overcome a lack of notability. Anyway, I’m not one for being spidey so if it’s kept, it’s kept and if it’s deleted, it’s deleted. I’m making like else and letting this one go. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: as per WJ94's comments above that I find highly persuasive Jack4576 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2023 (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.