Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syria civil war

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 merge to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. henrik•talk 14:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syria civil war

Syria civil war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is an unnecessary fork of 2011–2012 Syrian uprising containing mostly redundant information. It is also unclear whether the title is verifiably supported by reliable sources or may be a case of original research. The creator and primary editor of the page did not seek consensus for the fork on Talk:2011–2012 Syrian uprising before creating it. As this article is largely redundant and any attempt to separate fighting in Syria from protests in Syria or security actions in Syria cannot be definitively supported by the body of sources at this time, I believe the article must be deleted and any information not found on the page from which the fork derives should be merged. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Totally Oppose and absolute Keep First: we need this page because there is an absolute lack of central page about military operations in Syria. Second, this is different from the Uprising page, who don't cover the events covered by this page. Third: we have a military infobox, we need a military page. Fourth: The main objection to the move of the Uprising page to Civil War was that the protests were part of the uprising and the armed events of the civil war. Fifth : All is sources and used in sub articles. If the user Kuzdu1, known for his pro syrian opposition roots wants, he can open a move or merge discussion, but delete is compltely out of reality --ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't really care to get into any personal mudslinging, but my personal feelings about this issue aren't material here. You've been dinged for WP:POV editing on the Syria topic far more than I have, so please don't go there. I've got nothing personal against you, just don't see how this page is necessary when the uprising page covers violence and clashes even in its introductory section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the conflict is rapidly descending into a full out war. The uprising != civil war, and each article would reflect that. I think a fork is in order. Yazan (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If reliable sources made a distinction between the "civil war" many claim and the uprising, I would agree with you. But they don't. Do you ever see separate casualty tolls listed for the "civil war" than from the uprising? Or separate players said to be involved with each, even? It's an arbitrary distinction at this point, and I think the very use of the "civil war" name on this website without at least a working consensus of sources, which we had when we moved 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war last year, is POV and OR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudzu, I've suggested that much in the move discussion on the Syrian uprising page. Many sources are speaking now of a civil war, and it doesn't make sense to rename the uprising page into civil war. 1) because it covers a long period where the conflict was certainly not a civil war. 2) the article is already too long. 3) an forked article on the civil war would have a background section on the uprising, and I think that's more than enough.Yazan (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My primary concerns are that I don't see anywhere near a consensus among reliable sources that this is a full-blown civil war yet (and personal opinions aren't material without verifiability on this website), and I don't see anywhere that marks a division between the uprising and the "war". There has been fighting since the start of the uprising, according to the Syrian government's claims. According to the claims of the opposition and independent media, fighting has been verifiably ongoing since at least last summer. Escalation has been gradual. Any start date we use for the "war" is going to be completely arbitrary, and right now there's nothing really but the personal opinions of some editors saying it is a civil war, while in the meantime, our reliable sources aren't convinced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Syrian Opposition is no longer fighting for democratic concessions or compromises, but the removal of Al-Assad and his Ba'athist regime and is using the FSA as a military arm to acheive that goal. In turn the Syrian government has used military forces in an attempt to remain in power. I believe this is a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh...who knew a deletion discussion could be so engrossing as to get an IP user who had never contributed before to comment on it and a new user to sign up just to comment on it? Glad to see our community expanding in such unexpected ways... -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is remarkable. It shouldn't matter though: AfD should be more akin to a trial in which opposing views are heard and a decision rendered based on evidence and policy rather than an ill-monitored vote. If only closing administrators would remember that... Carrite (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeDelete with 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. This is the same article as the Syrian uprising page. Once the media starts calling the Syrian Uprising a civil war the article will be renamed. This article is being used to bypass the discussion that is going on that page. The Syrian uprising and the Syrian civil war are obviously the same thing. --Guest2625 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment POVfork is creating different pages with different points of views instead of one neutral page. This isn't POV fork. Both pages cover mainly different domains. With your speech, creating any sub page would be POV fork. This is not what is happening, your reasons are ,in conclusion, empty. This page is a welcomed specialization and has already a lot of new contents which are not in the firt page, and it is going to be expanded. By the way,the personnal problem between you and the creator of the page does not belong here.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll need to re-read WP:POVFORK because according to it a POV fork can, apart from a different page with a different point of view, also be another article on the same subject. The guideline even mentions specifically: The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article. The article currently under discussion fits that definition perfectly: it was created to dodge consensus and is under a title that clearly should redirect to the existing article about the exact same subject: 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is flawed. This page is not the other page under another name. The content is different. It is a specialization, a sub page.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It includes a few more recent clashes, but it's not really new content, it doesn't describe a separate event, and it's almost completely redundant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the main page, and nearly all the battles described in this new page are not even discussed in the main page. False road. It is a sub page.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then add them. That page is for the internal conflict in Syria; if it's not comprehensive, then make the changes there. But any distinction between the uprising, which has been increasingly violent since at least last summer, and the "civil war" is entirely artificial. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are RS calling this a civil war? I've seen headlines today like ' fears of civil war after peace plan is vetoed ' - by , usual suspects, reprehensible Russia/ChinaSayerslle (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious fork from 2011–2012 Syrian uprising Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to say Delete as a kind of fork (we often use "fork" to denote "POV" but that does not seem proven to me). At any rate, the content is mostly redundant to the uprising article, which, if needs be in the next weeks or months, can always be renamed--I'm going to go with Merge content and redirect, saving the name, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Merge) - the article was forked without any discussion, which is obligatory as currently editors argue whether it is a civil war, an uprising or something else.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that we still need to wait a little while before such a page is created, also there is still no consenus for the article. Even though it is rapidly descending into a civil war, it still hasn't "crossed the border".Goltak (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge don't care realy. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge. This is part of the larger period of uprising. I can imagine that once the dust settles, spinouts could be desired, and this may in the future be an acceptable spinout. I could also imagine that the phase in the conflict becomes the leading part of the uprising, and the article on the subject would be moved to this title. At any rate, it is much better to keep everything at the same place, and let at least some months pass before deciding on a definitive title for this subject, and the editorial choice on how to spin out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Merge: Not sure if we should call it civil war since not even the media is using such term. I think it should be renamed something else. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? That's the funniest thing I have read on Wikipedia in a while. Poor guy probably just copied the formula I used to vote and now he is blocked for that. Thanks for the good laugh though.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name dispute doesn't justify a fork. The current situation in Syria is already covered by an article, of which this article is an obvious POV fork. We can continue to debate the name for the main article as events dictate, but this article is just superfluous and adds to the confusion rather than enhancing Wikipedia's body of knowledge. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a neologism, its just speculative. such an affirmation cant be made so quickly while the conflict is turning into a "civil war" (as per media calls). not quite a war yet and not near where libya was. WP should be an ENCYCLOPAEDIA not a social media outlet to make editorial calls.
Or at the very least keep it as a redirect to the uprising which is more npov and credible. dont want it to be [[WP:RECENTISM]Lihaas (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You gave some arguments for a rename debate, not for a delete. No reason to delete the page like this talk suggests.--Aginsijib (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ChronicalUsual's refusal to accept the outcome of a renaming discussion is the whole reason this article exists in the first place. Renaming is not the solution, it is the cause. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content is different and can't be added with visibility into the other page. --Aginsijib (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can furbish us with a list of exactly what content on this page isn't on the other page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore "with visibility" indicates his clear pov (As are others especially for this event) and pushing an agenda. WP is NOT SOCIAL MEDIA!Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is user friendly. When a page becomes too heavy to read well or become too confused, it is split in sub-pages. --Aginsijib (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine. I know what a subpage is because I've created more subpages myself for Arab Spring content than any other editor on English-language Wikipedia except for maybe User:Bahraini Activist. This isn't a subpage. This is a second page for the same event that an editor created because he was mad that he didn't get his way in a renaming discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge(or Redirect)) per Greyshark09. Consensus was not reached before this page was created.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since it is a content fork. It is part of the larger uprising. I think another renaming discussion should occur in the next few days. Time magazine boldy declared "Syria is at war". While that isn't international or media consensus, it is a major publishing entity that says war is already occurring. Given that, and since it is a continuation/esclation of the uprising, I think it should be deleted (or merged, depending on the content). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2012 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSyria_civil_war