Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

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 redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This was a tricky debate to weigh up. That being said, the clear consensus when reading the discussion in full is that the best course of action is a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I have protected the redirect and note that any re-creation of this article under another title can be deleted per CSD G4. The reason why I haven't deleted the article is to allow (if consensus allows) content to be selectively merged into the ISIL article by interested parties, per a number of comments in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (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)

This is a duplication/POV fork of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and no sources support the assertion on this page. Any that did would fit on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant anyway. CMD (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a state, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a group. It's not "POV" if there are articles about the declaration of this state. For comparison, the Bangsamoro Republik and the Moro National Liberation Front have two separate articles. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources saying it's a state, just your OR/SYNTH off a single declaration made 3 days ago. Other editors may wish to read Talk:List of sovereign states#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, where the topic is discussed. CMD (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources that state the Islamic State of Iraq is a state, i vote for Merge into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page.XavierGreen (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only sentence on this page is already on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Previously this was a redirect, which I assume it would go back to. CMD (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Bangsamoro Republik and the Moro Liberation Front have two separate articles, why wouldn't this? One's a state, the other's a group. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 13:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because as I said above, we have no sources saying it's a state (presumably there's some primary sources in Arabic published by ISIS, but we shouldn't base claims to statehood off those). Furthermore, surely the fact that we have one sentence, entirely duplicated, shows you this topic isn't nearly large enough for its own page? Wikipedia is wp:notnews, and for the moment, news is all this is. CMD (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: [1] This source refers to ISIS declaring themselves to be a state, so I think that there is sufficient third party coverage of the events to justify this as a separate article. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is already a page for ISIS/ISIL. ISIS has always considered themselves a state since it's foundation, as their name (Islamic State) shows. Gazkthul (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic it always called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام and it declared itself as a state since it was called Islamic state of iraq in 2006. also it controls large areas in Syria and Iraq more than that of many countries in the world. if u wanna consder it as a state just edit this page Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - No need to create another page with the same info. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but possibly rename: This is an analogous situation to what happened with the Azawadi declaration of independence in 2012. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant differences between this and the Azawadi declaration. The Azawadi one was made after the government had been well and truly beaten back, with clear military superiority. Post-declaration, the MNLA was able to declare a unilateral ceasefire and get down to governing (it feel apart quickly, but they had the chance to try). This is a declaration by one rebel group who have managed to seize a few areas while being surrounded by both still-fighting governments as well as other opposing rebel groups. Calling it a state similar to Azawad is wp:crystal. CMD (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. The suggestion that something fundamental has happened here is WP:OR. There is nothing, beyond the speculation of Wikipedia editors, that suggests that this needs forking, and no reason to assume that events that have taken place will pass the 10-year test. So there should be no fork. There's nothing to merge, so merging is pointless. We should delete, or if the search term is useful, redirect. Kahastok talk 21:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ten year test? Thats OR in itself. Hundreds if not thousands of States throughout history have arisen and been destroyed in less than ten years. The legnth of time a state has been in existence is meaningless in its relevancy.XavierGreen (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. See List of shortest-lived sovereign states for examples. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which points invalidate the WP:10 year test, to which I was referring. Kahastok talk 07:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and leave it that way until reliable third-party sources report that other sovereign states have officially recognized ISIS/ISIL as a sovereign state. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your reason is ridiculous. Somaliland isn't recognized as sovereign by any another state, but it's included on the List of sovereign states. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 03:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there is currently major resistance to adding this "state" to the same list, because it relies on individual editors' interpretations of the Montevideo Convention (as nobody is able to provide a source that actually says that it is a state). Kahastok talk 07:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify for the record: Article 1 of Montevideo requires that a state show, among other things, the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." A state cannot enter into relations with other states that do not recognize it. The European Union and Switzerland are not parties to Montevideo but have adopted its statehood criteria. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The counterargument would hold that capacity is different from practical ability and that the declarative theory is explicitly independent of recognition. Regardless, no reliable source claims that this state has "capacity to enter into relations with the other states" in terms of Montevideo - this is original research by Wikipedia editors.
When people refer to a "state" here, everyone should realise quite how flimsy the evidence for this is in Wikipedia terms. Remember that there is no reliable source that comes to the conclusion that what we are talking about is a state. Rather, this entity's "statehood" was conferred by Wikipedians based on their own interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and on multiple sources that don't discuss the point.
By contrast, in the case of Somaliland it is not difficult to find detailed discussions of Somaliland's statehood (or lack thereof) explicitly in terms of Montevideo. Kahastok talk 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no evidence whatsoever that these are two different groups. This is just a case of different translations into English of the name of the same group (which, as pointed out by other editors, did already consider itself as a state since before). --Soman (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about a proclaimed state, not a second group. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is one of the same, the more apt correct translation is 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. You have zero references were ISIS and ISIL appear as separate entities, it's just two different ways to translate the same name. And for what it´s worth, there has been no 'declaration of independence' here. Just a misinterpretation of a single comment in one news piece. --Soman (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is only in control over this territory for a short period of time, then the article could possibly be renamed or merged into the article of the group and the conflict. However, the group "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is distinct from the territory that it controls, regardless of whether or not the names are identical.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont rename and merge later Bangsamoro Republik article still exists, so can this be later listed as a former state should the iraqi army take over Ionchari (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Azawad wasn't deleted, why this state?--Kohelet (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AfD has been linked to from a thread in /r/MapPorn. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • tend to Keep, but possibly rename, to differentiate from the establishing organization with similar name (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Soffredo's argumentation and to avoid double standards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is limited resources in regard to this topic, and almost all of this information can be merged into the ISIL's article itself, the current Anbar clashes or the current ISIL/Syrian-rebel infighting article. The ISIL has been fighting and claiming various emirates/caliphates for some time, why all of a sudden this "state" needs its own article is beyond me. The article is entirely misleading too by incorporating a misleading map. This does not seem like a centralized state, but more like a combination of swaths of territory of various levels of control. For example, the name of the group that took over Fallujah was given as the "Military Council of Anbar's Revolutionaries" - which would run contrary to what the creator of this article is trying to say that its a vast, centralized state. I liken the situation here as similar to the one in Yemen, where various militant groups have taken over cities and proclaimed them as independent states such as "Islamic Emirate of (insert city name here)". Using the same logic, each of these occasions would require its own state article. Using the same logic, the Taliban would have its own state article, and by extention the Syrian National Council or the Islamic Front would have their own state articles as they too have forces and hold land - and they might be even more centralized than ISIL is. At best, the ISIL should be added to the list of rebel groups that control territory. Isn't that page exactly for cases such as this? Hamas isn't written as a state, neither is Al-Shabaab. Using this logic would require a rewrite of any rebel group that controls territory. I've also outlined similar problems with the article in the articles talk page. Infernoapple (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete As the first comment says: "This is a duplication/POV fork of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." Jihadis don't talk about "Syria" -- that's a French-created state. They talk about "As-Sham", the region, the name of which goes back centuries. "Levant" is just the Western word for As-Sham. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant the name of the organization which maintains it is a state. It already has a wikipedia articl. Let's not embarrass wikipedia with a dumb mistake! --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge the Article has current historical significance, but may want to merge with similar article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.Tonywikido (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect - look carefully at the three sources given in the article; they all report that one fighter said that an "Islamic state" had been declared. None of the sources indicate what the "Islamic state" is actually called. Elsewhere in these sources there is mention of "members" of "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", which suggests that it is the name of a group rather than a state. For example, we wouldn't say "members of the United States" - we would say "people from the United States" or "citizens of the United States". As for the examples above of unrecognized states, the main difference is that they are/were de facto states with some form of "government". All we have for this "state" is a rumour mill; the NY Times reports a witness or witnesses saying that they heard a fighter shout out about declaring an "Islamic state". Who was the fighter? Who were the witnesses? Was it a genuine declaration or just some over-exeuberant group member making declarations? Does this "state" have a government? Does it have an official declaration? Have any of its allied Al-Qaeda groups recognised this declaration? What are the borders of this "state"? By one account (VoA), they have pushed the security forces out of the city centre. Another source(Daily Star) quotes a local official as saying that "the city's outskirts were in the hands of local police". Is it possible that the Iraqi security forces will retake the city? All of these questions can be answered at our leisure because this is not Wikinews. Green Giant (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The declaration of a state does not make a state. Until reliable sourcing emerges that there is an even the barest of state institutions operating in the area under the ISIS flag this article is projecting conflict rhetoric into a yet to be seen reality. GraniteSand (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This must be merged per WP:V: The name is a mistake based on poor translation and therefore fails WP:Verifiability, a WP:Policy. These is no reason to debate its notability, and the closing Admin should not even consider notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's a mistranslation it should be moved, but it should not be merged with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group is separate and distinct from the territory that it controls. If the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (group) is no longer in control of this territory, then we can debate merging it into the articles of the group and the conflict. --Tdl1060 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It controls no significantly greater or significantly more stable territory than many militant groups in the area. We do not create articles for the everchanging patches of land different groups may or may not control at various times in this area. CMD (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moved to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Because that is what it is. They already call themselves a state. Let me explain this in bearded murderer; "WE KILL EVERYBODY, CALL IT SHARIA. SHARIA REQUIRES A STATE, SO GET TO KILL MORE WE HAVE TO CALL IT A STATE." Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is premature. We do not know how long ISIL will be able to keep control over this territory and if they will be able to establish some degree of de facto state order. Wikipedia is not a news platform. It should be up to date, but creating an article about a purported "state" that has only existed for a few days so far is an example of WP:Recentism, which we should avoid. For now, it is completely sufficient if the article on the group mentions the declaration of independence and the current territorial control. The article about ISIL "state" lacks (and will continue to lack) information on essential features that define a state, like geography and demographics, because it has no defined borders (not even de facto borders), because it will expand or shrink or otherwise change its shape depending on the moving frontlines between ISIL group and its enemies in the ongoing war. Conclusion: this "state" lacks a defined territory, a definded people and we do not know yet if it has any kind of state order (unlike e.g. the aforementioned Somaliland, which has a defined territory, people and de facto state order). --RJFF (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you have just said (short lived, with a poorly defined territory and population) also applies to the Bangsamoro Republik, about which we have a relatively good and informative article, even though they existed for several days, and their border fluctuated for their entire history. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Bangsamoro has had three delarations of independence (1974, 2012 and 2013) and there is at least an agreement signed with the Philippines government about creating an autonomous region sometime soon. The latest declaration was made public on 12 August 2013 but the Bangsamoro Republik article wasn't created until 19 Aug 2013. It is a world difference to news reports of witnesses saying they heard a fighter shouting about establishing a state on Friday afternoon (3 Jan) and this article being created just after midnight Sun/Mon (5/6 Jan). A week after the "declaration", and Reuters reports that "tribal leaders, clerics and local government officials agreed on Friday to form a new administration for the city, nominating a new mayor and a new local police commander" and that "the Falluja talks appear to be bearing some fruit, with the militants being forced to lie low or melt away. A black al Qaeda flag hoisted over the new Falluja bridge in the western outskirts last night was swiftly removed". It is definitely a clear case of WP:Recentism. Green Giant (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - This article is just a WP:CFORK of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Furthermore, there are no WP:RS which verify that this "state" exists in any sort of meaningful way. Yes, some rebel declared it and that may be worth mentioning in the main article, but it certainly is not WP:N enough to necessitate a separate article. If and when this "state" starts to receive significant coverage by RS (as the Bangsamoro Republik did) then we could consider creating an article for it, but until then the article is premature. TDL (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to ISIL. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is a mistranslation of "Sham". The article contains no valuable information or information that can be contributed to another page. Ipuvaepe (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or Delete. This so-called state is not yet notable as one. It's not a matter of recognition by other states, it's a matter of recognition by reliable sources, which is pretty lacking. Furthermore, at present the article contains no useful information not in other articles. If the 'state' lasts long enough to be taken seriously by others, then the article can always be recreated, but right now it seems incredibly premature. The fact that other quasi-states declared by separatist groups have their own articles does not mean this one should; although for what it's worth, I'm not convinced those articles should exist either. Robofish (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - this does seem to be a content fork. Should events (and sources) indicate a separation of the two named states then the article could be reinstated in its own right. Zangar (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per others. Weird content fork and a glaring mistranslation to boot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This so-called state hasn't concluded any agreements with other states. It is only self-proclaimed and does not really exist.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Somaliland and the Bangsamoro Republik? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best solution is to Redirect to the ISIL page and add a country infobox there as this group now have full control over Ar-Raqqah Governorate [2]. they declared a state since 2006 but the real sole full control of Governorate in Syria only happened after their war against the Syrian opposition. so if Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik were considered De facto states the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant or Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham should be considered too. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a better idea than what I am proposing. Changing my vote to merge per 3bdulelah's reasoning --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It ignores the fact that no source concludes that a separate "country" or "de facto state" in fact exists, a point that is fundamental to this debate. Kahastok talk 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See here http://books.google.com/books?id=LzFaaWCuhdQC&pg=PA570&dq=islamic+state+of+iraq+ministers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ig7LUt26OI_JsQT4vILIDA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=islamic%20state%20of%20iraq%20ministers&f=false (description of the group's goals and government structure), here http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-04/243086-more-than-100-die-as-iraq-battles-al-qaeda.ashx#axzz2oNa3sbT8 (describes the state's self-declaration) and the source mentioned above, which points out that they control Ar-Raqqah. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first uses the term "Islamic State" as a pronoun, but does not conclude that a state in fact exists. The second reports a declaration but does not claim that a state exists. The third actually makes a point of refusing to call it a state (at least in the translation I saw). Including all three sources, there is no source that concludes that a separate "country" or "de facto state" in fact exists. Kahastok talk 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of the mechanics of the process, but there are enough redirect votes to do so. If someone else could do so, that would be great.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2014 (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/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_Syria&oldid=1173154284"