Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2011 in the Libyan 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 Speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett as pages created by a blocked user in violation of a block (CSD G5). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[April 2011 in the Libyan Civil War]]=

:{{la|April 2011 in the Libyan Civil War}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|April 2011 in the Libyan Civil War}})

Simply put, this article is not a Wikipedia article but more of a news dump; this is recentism at its worst.

and

:{{la|Early March 2011 in the Libyan Civil War}}

:{{la|February 2011 in the Libyan Civil War}}

-

–MuZemike 08:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Also nominated for deletion along with the above article per nominator's rationale:

:{{la|Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War}}

-

-DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: Adding Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War was clearly a bad faith WP:POINT revenge act by the author of the other articles. Since the author has strenuously argued below for "keep", it makes no sense for them to say that another article should be deleted by the same rationale. In addition, much of the discussion below does not apply to that article, as is clear on reading it, so in the unlikely event that someone genuinely thinks it should be deleted, it should have a separate AfD. I was not the one who struck out that post, but I agree with the editor who did so. DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil, the author of these articles, was a sockpuppet of SuperblySpiffingPerson, who has a history of using numerous sockpuppets for disruptive editing. Amongst countless disruptive edits, this author refactored MuZemike's comment below, to make it say something slightly different than it originally did. (I have restored MuZemike's version.) Needless to say, the account is now indefinitely blocked. This article qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G5 (creation by a blocked user in defiance of the block). I would have speedy-deleted it, but for the fact that there has been quite a bit of discussion here, so I thought it better to let the AfD run its course. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 08:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 08:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

::Keep It is a subarticle of the Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War which had become grossly oversize of the 40-60kb prose limit defined at WP:SIZERULE. That article had gone to 273kb and growing. Now all the subarticles are a chance of getting in limit if not already so. The Libya Civil War article became too large and hence the timeline article was broken out of it and now these sub-timeline article have to be broken out because of the same issue. I'm afraid the issue will otherwise persist until the leaders of the Libyan opposition negotiate to step down from power and accept exile or otherwise end their treachery with its elements of foreign collaboration. Meanwhile out database will do well to keep a good coverage of developments which WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL/WP:SOFIXIT requires us not to sneer at as a "news dump".

::Simple inquiries reveal that timeline articles abound across our database, eg. Timeline of the 2009 Iranian election protests. They have usefulness and are unquestionably permitted by Wpedia policy.DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:::I did not nominate the Timeline article itself for deletion; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=424497684&oldid=424492513 you nominated it there yourself]. That was not my intent. I don't think a timeline itself is bad, but when a timeline consists of nothing but single-sentence-paragraph mentions of news pieces to the point of it getting too large, then it needs to be scaled back and rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion. This, so far, has not been done. –MuZemike 09:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - there is some very odd and highly POV editing going on here. If this article is deleted, we should make sure the information is restored to the original article Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war. SeaphotoTalk 09:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak delete (or rather merge back into timeline article). Notable and at least some of it is verifiable. But the level of detail is too much for an encyclopedia, there is no coherence, and it is largely reporting the rebel perspective on the war (perhaps because there are fewer reports from the loyalist side). The rebel news organisation, http://www.libyafeb17.com/, is cited extensively, and is clearly going to be as biased as the loyalist one. Weak delete because I could be persuaded that these should be kept, but not in their current format. I think Late_March_2011_in_the_Libyan_Civil_War should be added to the discussion, and that User:DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil should produce a separate AfD discussion for Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War if he genuinely feels it should be deleted. Jll (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:All the articles are part of the same complex and do best to be considered together. It will not be acceptable that one editor may include two articles of the complex into the AFD of a first when and another participating may not include another. This is why. If the subarticles go then the parent article also should go. They all have the same 'newsdump' style, or they will have if everything is merged back into the parent after all. If that merge happens we will not only have the unliked style, it will have the second strike against it of being incorrigibly oversize. The subsplitting has solved the oversize problem and provides a way forward to address the style objections. Style objections aren't dealt with by just deleting the whole thing, they're achieved by retaining to copyedit. The nominator hasn't even attempted that step and I would doubt it lends much improvement. After all, these things are TIMELINES, and they therefore lend themselves to submenuing into year, month and day. Jus' sayin'. Articles about discrete battles are different. You can separate them into a para about the cause, another para about the tactics, another about the aftermath, and another about the order of battle and the names of commanders.

:Say this war lasts as long as the Sri Lankan Civil War. It will have to be split down into time brackets.

:Lastly I see below another user trespassing into distracting discussing into consideration of my talk history on issues other than the proper discussion this nomination rationale. Pal, you be very careful to improve your act on that score.DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

::Comment. I disagree that if the subarticles go then the parent article should go. My view is that the sub-pages should be merged, in reduced form, back into the original Timeline page. It would be nonsensical for me to argue that the Timeline page should then be deleted. One of my objections is that they contain too much detail — reduce the detail so reduce the size and then they will fit back into the parent. Jll (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment – in my opinion, this so-called splitting because of "WP:SIZERULE" is a mere ruse to inject some WP:NPOV into the prose. last stable version of main article is at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war&oldid=424474774 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war&oldid=424474774] (edited by 96.232.126.111 (talk) at 04:32, 17 April 2011). one will see that the articles' creator, User:DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil, has numerous warnings on the editor's talk page (User Talk:DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil) one may have to look at this editor's talk page. the editor has frequently transformed received warnings into "hidden text" so that, on the surface, the editor's talk page looks pristine. --96.232.126.111 (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep This doesn't belong at AFD, the event is obviously notable, as is the justifications for creating a timeline. There are an incredible amount of problems with these articles, all of which are typical for ongoing events, and should be handled on the talk page of the respective articles. Just as with the Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, it will be a little sloppy and heavily edited during the event, but it will settle out in time and get trimmed down to an appropriate size, then merged if that is appropriate at that time. Merge isn't a topic for AFD anyway. This is a historic event, drawing in the UN, NATO, and will have ramifications for decades, a timeline is certainly appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment – I did NOT nominate Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War for deletion, but DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil insists on lumping it in there. I am removing that from the list above. I have only nominated the three "month" articles for deletion; adding in the "timeline" article (against my wishes) is starting to prejudice this AFD. DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil, if you want deletion on that, please nominate that for deletion separately. –MuZemike 16:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete per reasons cited by MuZemike. Suggest semi-protection of Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war to prevent further edit wars. Changing from keep after DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil's ruse became clear.Ihosama (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Too much unprocessed detail for an encyclopedia. The word history includes the word story, and this information has no story to tell. Also, this is a POV-split. The article was created by a POV-pushing editor who split material from the original article without including text he disagreed with. This text which did not support his position was deleted, not moved to the sub-article. What the original article needs is to have it trimmed in size so that only the most important events are listed, not split into several equally unprocessed articles. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:Comment: we need to be careful with trimming ATM. Much of the timeline article is not reproduced in topic-specific articles. However i.e. the initial protests section could be reformed, cited by the timeline which gets trimmed at the same time. Later we can move on other time sections, slowly trimming the article from its start, always leaving the tail to live its live.Ihosama (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Asd has been pointed out above, this so-called splitting because of "WP:SIZERULE" is a mere ruse. It was part of an elaborate and well thought out plan to make numerous changes in various palces to hide the true purpose, which was to conveniently lose elements that the editor did not like, and substitute versions more in keeping with that editor's point of view. There is no good reason for having a host of little articles. Fragmenting the account into little pieces about tiny fragments of the whole story is not helpful in any way. We don't have an article on April 1944 in World War 2. I note that, apart from the author, the only editor here in favour of keeping is Dennis Brown, who says "the event is obviously notable" (but that is about whether to keep the content, not about whether it should be fragmented into separate articles, which is essentially what is at issue here); "a timeline is certainly appropriate" (but nobody except the sockpuppet author has suggested deleting Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War, and that suggestion was clearly a bad faith WP:POINT nomination); "then merged if that is appropriate at that time" (but gives no reason why it isn't appropriate now); "Merge isn't a topic for AFD anyway" (yes it is). JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per cogent arguments by Binksternet and JBW. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge everything into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Alexius08 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge everything into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War. As Alexius said. We do not need more splits to further complicate matters, the main article should be about the background of the war, as well as the causes and the timeline remain as the timeline of events, not spitted into months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimlanin (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to one article. No need for a wacky split like the Arabic Wikipedia.--Rafy talk 11:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge everything into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War, but remove poorly-sourced, insignificant and overly-detailed facts and information, per Dennis Brown. There is absolutely no need to remove so much useful content from Wikipedia, and just because these articles are on the same topic, they are on different levels of specificity and cannot all be considered as one "package". Also, I believe all of the discussion on the WP:SIZERULE "ruse" is irrelevant. Wikipedia doe not have a single author, and there is no "true purpose" behind any article, unless it was evidently only written by one contributor; here, that is not the case. Again, I say all important information should be kept, but this is certainly not to be a news-feed for random people. --Interchange88 ☢ 12:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

:Comment There is _nothing_ to merge! See noclador's comment above.92.52.55.29 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

::The timeline page used to only link to the new pages, but it's been reverted, I see. Ansh666 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

please close and delete

Please close and delete as the vandal who created this 3 copy&paste articles to better hide his vandalism, keeps coming back to vandalize the main article every day again: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=425745404&oldid=425742985], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=425993107&oldid=425992112], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war&diff=425742985&oldid=425724831],... for details please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson/Archive. Therefore: close this discussion now and delete the 3 things SuperblySpiffingPerson created. noclador (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

:second the motion. these articles should have be dealt a "speedy delete" at the onset.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (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.