Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–present Libyan factional fighting

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 keep. This does not preclude continued discussion about how articles about the topic should be organized.  Sandstein  11:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011–present Libyan factional fighting

2011–present Libyan factional fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This article is simple archive and collection of every single article about Libya since death of Muammar Gaddafi. Encyclopaedic value is nowhere to be seen. Moreover the whole name of event, for the lack of better word, that article is describing is non-existent in any RS. Libya factional fighting shows on Google News exactly zero results (aside of link on wiki article). Articles which were created for notable military confrontation(2012 Bani Walid uprising, 2012 Benghazi attack, Siege of Bani Walid (2012), 2012 Zintan clashes, 2012 Sabha conflict, 2012 Kufra conflict, 2012 Tripoli airport clashes), plus content in Aftermath of the Libyan civil war article are sufficient to cover all notable events without this archive. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Surely not of Libyan civil war article. Article was more or less closed after declaration of victory by rebel forces and for a year been mostly stagnant. I believe some content was originally in Aftermath article but shortly afterwards this one was created. However it turned into news archive as you can see. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Total disagree. This article is fundamental to have a comprehensive view of the situation in Libya since the end of the Libyan Civil War. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE cannot be applied here clearly: WP:INDISCRIMINATE says literally: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." That happens with the majority (if not all) of the article. Also, the article doesnt fit in any of the three categories listed as WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases and Excessive listings of statistics. And about WP:NOTNEWS: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.". I can understand using WP:NOTNEWS for a section of the article, but use it as a tool to simply delete the article is not logic. The article is logically not a simple compilation of "every single article about Libya" (that would be impossible), but an attempt to bring a comprehensive view of the ongoing and continued violence wich is notable (armed clashes between several different militia groups or between Libyan tribes, attacks against senior Libyan officials or foreign diplomats, killing of refugees, bombing and destruction of mosques and churches, kidnapping/detention of foreigners by government forces or militias, etc...) and had caused more than 2,000 fatalities and rising. About the name of the article, its the term more used on news reports about this events, see: Factional fighting claims lives in Libya Deadly factional clashes erupt in Libya Al Jazeera, A year after revolt, Libya mired in factional fighting MSNBC, Inter-factional fighting in Libya results in 18 deaths Voice of Russia, Libyans are urged to stop factional fighting United Nations Radio, Libyan interim PM warns of factional infighting Daily Star. Ah, there are 396,000 results if you type "libyan factional fighting" in Google, so that's not a reason to erase the article. Finally, erasing this article while maintaining the 2012 Bani Walid uprising, 2012 Benghazi attack, Siege of Bani Walid (2012), 2012 Zintan clashes, 2012 Sabha conflict, 2012 Kufra conflict, 2012 Tripoli airport clashes articles would be a total non-sense, as the latter were originated from this parent article, so they would be orphaned articles if we delete this crucial one. Although, I dont have any problem with reviewing the article and eliminate content (if there is some) wich is not related with the main issue of the article, thats it, the ongoing violence in Libya. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of this stuff was added by you, it is logical that you defend it. However typing Libyan factional fighting into Google will search for all 3 words separately, therefore throwing you results which has only world "libyan" in it for example. Like some Libyan festival in Tripoli.
Therefore [1] shows No results found for "Libyan factional fighting". That is settled. Also they would be not orphaned as they would be included into Aftermath article. Bytheway this can be easily considered WP:CFORK of that article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE clearly states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As for WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. This article is exact opposite of that. Most of the article fails WP:NOTABILITY as we are talking about stand-alone events reported by agencies in one short article, or reported only by local media (Tripoli Post, Libya Herald). We have separate articles for that which wasn´t.
To be honest this is like having article for every reported murder in Greater Chicago, again no encyclopaedic value at all. And lastly, according to data from MoI (which you added) 500 died in 2012. Not 2,000. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be armed conflict, above normal political discourse, that can be verified (all, news). The question is, are the series of events notable above WP:NOTNEWS, and per WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTENCE. I can see both ways. At worse the verified content could be summarized and placed in an aftermath section of the civil war, or someplace else relevant. At best, it can be kept.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. While a small number news stories refer to prolonged fighting between factions in Libya (eg [2]), the extent of such stories in reliable sources is nothing like what would be expected if this was a widely recognised concept (I note that a fair number of unreliable sources are claiming that such a conflict exists, with many being inspired by this article, I suspect). Searching Google Scholar for 'factional fighting in Libya' returns no useful sources [3], which also isn't what would be expected if experts have endorsed such a concept. Some sources I've checked state that Libya is actually fairly peaceful - for instance, the Economist's coverage of Libya emphasizes the country's overall stability and relatively low level of internal conflict (eg, this story from last November states only that "The ugliest fly in the national ointment is the sporadic violence still tarnishing several of Libya’s cities."). As such, this article appears to be an attempt to conflate various incidents into a wider conflict. If experts in this field (and NOT individual news stories) have published commentary, papers or journal articles which link these events together then we've got an article-worthy topic, but at present it looks a lot like a case of the WP:SYNTH which Wikipedia's articles on ongoing conflicts in developing countries are prone to becoming. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2011 in Libya, 2012 in Libya and 2013 in Libya. Category:2012 in Libya need for main article. NickSt (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That could be considered WP:CFORK by some (though I guess if it is moved not so much. Not sure about it) and issue of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would still be unresolved if moved and split in its current form. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename to Insurgency in Libya (2011–present), same as Iraqi insurgency? NickSt (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t see how that tackles the main problem. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that topic of post civil war armed clashes itself may be notable enough to deserve article. On other hand, in its current form the article is indeed very clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Staberinde (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are so many issues that I dont know well how to start. As the previous commenter had said, there had been several post war armed clashes in Libya (almost every month since 2011). That is not an appretiation, but a fact. For example, the State Department document describing 230 'security incidents' in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012. I would not call that fairly peaceful, as some user had done, by ignorance or bad faith. If he had shown a single source stating that Libya is peaceful, I can bring several stating the contraire, as for example: Libya Struggles to Curb Militias as Chaos Grows NY Times, The west must be honest about its role in Libya's violent chaos The Guardian, Political chaos in Libya hampers U.S. probe of deadly Benghazi attacks Washington Post, Chaos reigns in Libya Gulf News, Libya without Gaddafi: Chaos and collapse Pravda, ‘The lessons of Libya: Chaos is no surprise’ Russia Today, Who’s Running Libya? Chaos Reigns After Benghazi U.S. Consulate Attack The Daily Beast. It seems that for some the notability of an article is based on what notability is given to the issue not by the world press, but by the western world press. What is simply a manipulation is trying to hide or erase facts (the widely expanded ongoing violence and chaos in Libya) based on hundreds of sources, with excuses that would not be applied to articles of the same type. I mean, if this article get a WP:NOTNEWS nomination, every conflict article with a sourced timeline can and should get a WP:NOTNEWS nomination. The contrary would be a crystal-clear double standard, a thing that sadly happens often in WP. My question is: Are we judging this article with the same measures as for example the Libyan Civil War article? If not, that means simply biased censorship. About deleting the article and including the major battles/clashes in the Aftermath of Libyan... I dont think its a good idea, as finally that article would collapse for being too long for comfortable reading (unless there is censorship too in that article, and only pro-NTC content is allowed. I wouldnt be surprised of that). It also seems at least strange to me that a user who had contributed to the article (that means he thought it was an interesing and necessary article), surprisingly and suddenly decides that the article aint got notability no more. Why that 360º change? Oh, and last but not least, I had to point the author of the nomination about the death toll. I didnt add any "Mol" source about 500 killed in Libya fighting in 2012, could you be more explicit? The same infobox article states that 1371-1397 persons had been killed since late 2011 in armed clashes (a probably low appretiation, it wasnt me who added it to the infobox), and that toll only includes people killed until October 2012 (the killing of US ambassador in Benghazi by former "rebels"). According to this paper presented in 2012 at the UN Human Rights Council by the United World Colleges, the Libyan factional fighting is one of the few (only a dozen) conflicts (Iraqi insurgency, Afghan War, Syrian Civil War, Sudan conflict, Colombian conflict, Northern Mali conflict, Somali Civil War, Mexican drug conflict, Congo conflict, North-West Pakistan conflict and Egyptian War in Sinai) that claimed more that 1,000 lifes a year. So that 500 person figure is at least dubious, for not saying not reliable. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I could let go usage of RT as RS but Pravda? Writing about biased western perspective and than throwing in ring Pravda is equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
But that aside there are murders in Chicago. Can you see article documenting every single murder in Chicago and than throwing them together as some cohesive military conflict? Because I don´t and that, obviously, does not apply to Chicago only. Also to other cities. Or countries. Such as Libya.
Now to notability. First of all usage of non-evil Western sources is truly small. I don´t even see you using them much, if at all. Notability does not mean one article in BBC or NYT. Content you add is not notable enough. From vast majority it has one mention in RS, mostly in local media which of course cover all aspects of life in Libya. That is not notable. But I will return to Notability later.
Next, Aftermath. No one suggested deletion of major confrontation articles, nor inclusion of their content in Aftermath article. I don´t know why you think that is the case.
As for you not adding anything like that, you did. Infobox is counting, not RS.
And lastly, I see that you stopped defying that this is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since majority here, and without any objection your latest post including, agrees that article is such case than I must remind you that article is notable if is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. Therefore if this article is indeed breach in case of INDISCRIMINATE, it is not Notable. Not that it is the only reason why it fails to establish such criteria (WP:GNG or WP:WHYN which clarifies this right in the first point) but nothing better demonstrates it as this.
PS: About the paper, not published by UWC, but UWCCI. First of all I don´t really see where you found out that paper was presented to UN. There is no such mention anywhere. Second, conference which was established less than a year ago which so far has not gone though any proper peer-research, doesn´t even provide name of authors, nor has any history of publication of their work is probably not yet RS. It would be best to ask of WP:RSN but it seems pretty clear. Just as it is clear that names of conflicts are copy-pasted from wikipedia.
PPS: Nick-D made an excellent point with WP:SYNTH. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im not gonna judge wich source is RS, but its at least curious to see some users that in 2011 stated that JANA or Mathaba were not RS, but now consider LANA, Libya Herald or even Tripoli Post (of course, post-2011 TP, not pre-2011 TP) as RS. Crystal-clear example of double standards, but it seems that their view had been imposed, so I try to use that sources to avoid the risk of being an "unreliable source" to some of these users.
Again, Im not adding every single killing in Libia, but Im adding every violent clashes between militias or tribes, or every terrorist attack to the article as it is logic (or not? reading some opinions I dont know...) Perhaps I had to review the Libyan Civil War article to delete unreliable sources or issues not related to that article, but I'll bet you what you want that some users would not let me touch that article...More double standards again...
Reading some users, it seems that from the end of the Libyan Civil War peace had reached Libya, where all live in peace and joy...Theres no worse blind than the one who dont want to see, as there had been armed clashes or bomb attacks with dozens killed almost every month from 2011 until today, you can see it easy in the article. Recently, UK and Australia made an advice to their citizens not to travel to Benghazi, not being the first time that Western countries (USA, France...) told their citizens not to travel to Libya.
About WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I can accept that SOME (of course not all, and not even the majority of the article) content of the article would be better on other article: Aftermath of the Libyan civil war, but not simply erasing it, as if CENSORSHIP is vigent in WP. One of these contents that should be moved for example is the one you mistake as the number of people killed by armed clashes, bomb attacks or executions, when it really covered the common criminality, not directly related with the conflict. As I said before, the counting of people killed in clashes, attacks, executions, etc... clearly exceed nowadays 2,000 people, its as simple as counting the victims... Also, I wouldnt use the "majority" card to say that most think this is INDISCRIMINATE, as I could use it too to say "The MAJORITY agree that the article should be keeped".
PS: About the paper, UWCCI is an integral part of UWC, so I dont know where are you trying to go. At the top right of the paper it says "Human Rights Council". If you still had doubts, you can see this to see that it refer to the UN Human Rights Council. I still dont know why you see this as an unreliable source, any logic, non-partisan reason?.
PPS: As you can see, I tried to answer one by one your points, I would be glad if people do the same instead of ignoring the facts they dont like...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bring it to RSN. I have no interest in WP:SOAP, especially considering that sources you complain about are sources most used by you when editing article.
All right, so you admit to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Good. Also you are taking here also murders and assassinations whose assailants and their motives are unknown. So although you are not bringing every violent event which happens there, you bring to article every violent event which is published in media.
Fine part, yet not about the subject, but about users. See WP:FOC for more info.
There is not just some. There is all. Important parts are already summarized in articles. Rest is a collection/archive/whatever of any violence in country reported in media. I don´t see nearly anything about factional fighting (maybe aside of infobox which is incorrect as well). Who are those factions? Who are their leaders? What are their objectives? What is their area of control? There is nothing about that in the article. This article is not about factional fighting.
UWCCI is NGO which is part of UWC. Given that it states 2012 I kind of doubt that it is "integral" part. That "guide" was written by UWCCI, not UWC. And I am sorry, but because it has written on top of it "UNHRC" it was presented to UNHRC? If there will be instead of UNHRC, Great Spaghetti Monster was it presented to it? The link you provided also mentions nothing like that it was a, published b, presented.
Last point - we are going here in circles. All that I stated in this post was already stated in one form or another in my previous. If you want to respond, fine

by me, but unless something new will come into the discussion I won´t respond because my take on this issue was already stated. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Word "faction" is in article (infobox exluded) mentioned once. So where is that factional fighting if even article contains nothing like it? EllsworthSK (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, you only want to answer to the points you want, forgetting the things you dont want to see. UWCCI is a part (regional part) of UWC, I dont know what "integral" means to you. And if the paper had a "Human Rights Council" mark, I think It should be for something referred to the UNHRC, not because it looks good on the paper. About the factions, If you dont see them, simply you're blind: Ansar al-Sharia, Supreme Security Committees, Libya Shield Force, Brigade 93, Zintan Brigade, Toubou militiamen, Mashaniya militiamen, Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, Gharyan Brigade, Gaddafi loyalists, Al-Awfea Brigade, Zuwara Brigade, etc... About the INDISCRIMINATE issue, as I said before, I accept that some content (I repeat, some, not all, and not even the majority of the article) should be moved to Aftermath of the Libyan civil war, although see how the Badrashin railway accident is somehow included in Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Mohamed Morsi (from November 2012). Again, I hope we have the same standards to similar articles, reaching the same issue again...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You brought something new so Rafallah Seheti is not sourced one in article to be part of any battle. Same goes for Ansar al-Sharia which is suspect (and I have little doubt that it was them but my personal feelings shouldn´t get in line with this) in attack on Benghazi consulate, but was never proven guilty, neither was it part of any clash, Gharyan brigade is sourced to be part in one clash, Zwara brigade does not even exist and sources does not state once that some katiba like that exists, just talk about clashes in Zwara. SSC operates under MoI, Libya Shield operates under MoD, both government entities just as army or police. Brigade 93 existence is based on speculation of former Bani Walid military council chairman, never proven to exist and mentioned only during first Bani Walid clashes. In second there is no source (well but wiki) which ever claimed their existence. Toubou and Mashashiya militamen are not faction, but militiamen similar to those in Tripoli, Lebanon from Jabal Mohsen and sunni part (faction is group within larger group - simple militiamen do not fulfil that condition). Gaddafi loyalist made one attack (well, not attack but detonated one IED in Tripoli which killed 2 people. All others are simply one side blaming Gaddafi loyalist what in vast majority of cases turns out to be bollocks - like in Zwara where some accused Brigade of Martyr Gaddafi of attack, turns out no Gaddafi loyalist was ever found and in that regards was never even arrested after civil war in connection with post-war attack and I remind you that Bani Walid council which rulled the city before it was attacked by army and allied Misrata militias rejected any statement like that and journalists in town saw NO Gaddafi-era flag, only few new flags) Al-Awfea does not exist anymore as they were busted during their airport raid (about which we have bytheway separate article). So again, where are those factions? Who are they? As for the accident, worse example couldn´t be chosen as it classifies as WP:EVENT which is same as Bani Walid battle fe. I don´t see you claiming that this article is an event. My job is done here. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how the subject can be viewed as non-notable. It looks like a good article on an important subject. Everyking (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have yet to make up my mind about this one. But I do note with interest that it has been viewed over 24,000 times in the past 90 days, suggesting reader interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem isn't that topic of title is not relevant, problem is that in reality article is currently Chronological list of armed violence in Libya. Then I read article about factional fighting I expect it to be easy to see what are main involved factions and what have been main clashes. Its not good idea to add 1-2 sentences for every time someone got shot or some random bomb went off somewhere. It would be far easier to vote "keep" if authors promised to turn this article into something actually readable.--Staberinde (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your concern. We don't typically delete at AfD where the concern is an editing concern. Instead, we delete where the topic is not notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its not simply "editing concern", basically we have article which is blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted, no questions asked, occupying title which could potentially cover actually legitimate topic. Article should be basically wiped clean and written from scratch.--Staberinde (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rewrite it, go for it and see what you can do. Deleting all of this, however, would be ridiculous. Everyking (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Every on this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this level of coverage, this subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the main article on the subject - ridiculous nominiation. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - the information on here is sourced and notable, though perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it unrest in Libya 2011- or civil disturbances or something of that nature.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone is interested in news about Libya he/she should read where most of the news here are from "Libya Herald". What I see here is an amalgamation of news about a country where every household has a weapon and when two persons has a personal problem they might use some guns!. Some brigades or whatever mentioned in the head of the article doesn't even exist anymore (Al-Awfea Brigade being in a trial for breaking into the airport, nothing called so now), 28 May Brigade (doesn't exist any more), Zuwara Brigade (never heard of it, I am living 110 away from the place that is called Zuwara and I guess you mean local people there with weapons? then you should add every town in Libya to one of your imaginary fighting sides). Also for the people names I barely can recognize any, being from Tripoli and if there is a war or whatever in my country I should be able to know who is running the war next to my door, but the fact the war doesn't exist except in this weird wiki page!!. Maybe I should start a page on the WW3 in Venezuela as about 20,000 homicides happens there a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoubang (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being Libyan doesnt give you the right to judge what its true or not. All the brigades added to the article are mentioned in journalists articles, so no one is "inventing" anything. Same happens with incidents, killings, etc... If you have any sourced reliable information that contradicts this article, lets include it instead of trying to ridiculize with no reasons...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Events in the article are most certainly notable. Article covers the factional unrest/fighting/clashes between different former rebel brigades and some remnants of loyalist units around the country following the end of the war. The continuing internal fighting in the country has already been mentioned enough in international media and among diplomatic circles to make it notable. Although, the name of the article itself may need changing. EkoGraf (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per RightCow. Meets our notability standards. Discussion would be fine on its talkpage as to a possible rename. That's not an issue for AfD. And, of course, cleanup would be nice. But that also is not reason to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011–present_Libyan_factional_fighting&oldid=1137517321"