Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tripoli (2011)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Rename and/or merger discussion can and should continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) (formerly Battle of Tripoli (2011))

edit
Battle of Tripoli (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources I can find suggest that "A battle for Triploi" might take place, but there certainly isn't support for one raging right now. This article violates WP:CRYSTAL. Fighting does not necessarily equal a "battle", this is hardly the Battle of the Somme. Wikipedia is meant to report on history not create it. Pontificalibus (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting has happened in the suburbs and amid rallies, but if we are to define a battle as being between two armies, like the Somme, then this article needs to be renamed, not deleted. As it is, the model of the modern revolution usually involves semi-organized PEOPLE, not armies, and this is reflected by the nature of the entire uprising. The importance each side has allocated to Tripoli, the violence that has already occurred there, and Gaddafi's decision to stay there all are enough to requisite this article, but probably not as a "battle." Metaknowledge (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest then? Renaming it to Fighting in the Triploi area during the 2011 Libya uprising? Is there any reason this needs a seperate article to 2011 Libya uprising? There wasn't any discussion let alone consensus to split off information about the uprising in Tripoli as opposed to the rest of Libya. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Struggle for Tripoli" is my suggestion. Specifically, Tripoli is important in this and there is no way other than this article to get information just on Tripoli's role in it. Metaknowledge (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The article already more than demonstrates notability. This is a major element in one of the biggest events (so far) of the 21st century. Agreed it is not a traditional state v. state battle, and has not yet reached its apex in terms of intensity, but it is a battle nonetheless, as the sources make clear, and it has begun. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, - well, redirect and if you want to merge something that is not in one of the other articles I support that also, corrently this doesn't belong here at all, perhaps wikinews, the title is awfully POV as well, talk about one sided, you could also call it, the defence of Tripoli. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment - So is Battle of Moscow a biased title, or Battle of Rostov (1941), Battle of Berlin, or Battle of Britain? The description is also being used by multiple major media outlets: [1], [2], [3]. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, excuse me I read it as Battle for tripoli. - and as such could also have the opposite , defence of Tripoli - I still support deletion though and the title is still not good, battle is more like the links you presented and I am not seeing reporting of such a situation occurring as a battle, perhaps a peoples uprising, anyways we are not rolling news. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, concerns about the name are more than valid, but the article's content is still important and unless you are arguing against its notability (which does not seem to be in too much question) there is no reason to push for deletion. Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We also have about the protests in Libya - 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Libya and Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising and International reactions to the 2011 Libyan protests and 2011 Libyan uprising and List of Libyan officials who protested or resigned during 2011 protests looking at the BBC reports Gadaffi is still in control in Tripoli and there are few reports of a battle presently occurring, I would say the opening line in the article - The Battle of Tripoli is a battle currently taking place for the control of Tripoli, - is currently more of an ambition than a reality. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is major on its own, and as for your concerns, the timeline proves that WP:CRYSTAL is not violated, POV may be a bit problematic because of better and more accurate reports from the rebels as compared to Qaddafi's supporters, but all info is to the best of our knowledge as this progresses. I don't know what part of WP:NOT you're invoking, but this article seems to follow those guidelines last I checked. Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to 2011 Libya uprising. This is a crystal ball article, describing something that has not happened and which might not happen. The Afrol press article cited in the article which used the term "battle" described largely unarmed crowds of protesters popping up somewhere for a bit until the Kadaffy troops shot at them at which time they dispersed. A battle requires two armed forces. The dictators in Egypt and Tunisia were deposed without a "Battle of the Capitol City". Similarly there was no "Battle of Petrograd" when the Reds captures the Winter Palace in 1917. If a battle occurs at a time in the future, an article could be split off. Edison (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also note I had a good look round and the unconfirmed claim in the article that the the airport is controlled by rebel forces is still unconfirmed and imo a very dubious claim. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mitiga airport is confirmed by various sources; see the ref list. As for Egypt and Tunisia, those were very different struggles where the opposition was based in the capital city, whereas this rebellion is coming from the countryside and are coming to take the capital city, hence the need for this article to describe that. Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Too much information has been removed by wikipedia simple for the sake of brevity or whatever, there's no good reason to delete this page, it's far and away the most important battle of the Libyan conflict. Swalgal (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those were nonviolent movements. Not to mention actual fighting, 65 mercenaries have died in civilian-led lynchings. Hardly Gandhi's ahimsa or MLK's "universal love." Metaknowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to Tripoli during the Libyan uprising or something similar. We can't just create separate articles for every single event in the uprising. I also don't think that these events can be defined as a battle. Rafy talk 10:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the battle is beginning to occur between Qadhaffi's forces and people in Tripoli. I think the name is appropriate as it really is a battle for the last and most important city. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to add, this article DOES NOT violate WP:CRYSTAL. This article has been sourced and refers to an ongoing situation. There aren't any looking-forward statements. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There also currently is nothing happening in Tripoli that is worthy of an article at all. The reports are that Gaddaffi is in full control of the city. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note - I don't like moving articles during AFD discvussion but the title as it was so false a representation of the facts as reported that I have moved it to 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) - this is reflective of the situation that all these articles that are being forked of have no additional value, and need forking back where they belong, 2011 Libyan uprising, I have also moved a couple more that are being forked of in a similar manner, we are not here to promote weak uprisings. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your conduct of moving the article in the middle of an AFD discussion and renaming all of those others, on the basis it has not been confirmed that the fighting in Brega and Ras Lanuf constitutes a battle even though all media outlets have described them as battles for those cities, could constitute major POV-pushing on your part. Not to mention that you removed a number of referenced information from those articles allong with the references, that could be considered as vandalism. In all good faith I am telling you you need to discuss these things before doing such extreme things. So please do so. Also, please refrain from using wording as weak uprisings, because that could be seen as a non-neutral point of view, and also how can you even say weak uprising since 3,000 people may have already died? EkoGraf (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish - totally unconfirmed extreme claims - there is no battle for Tripoli and to host an article under such a title is not our job. All extreme unconfirmed claims require consideration and attribution to the author and the publication and should not be presented as if fact - Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say the event in this article is a battle, I myself am for renaming it, I only said that I ahve a problem with you renaming it on your own while the discusson has not ended and i had a problem with you removing cited information, even if they may be just claims, from those other two articles and renaming them without first discussing it with other editors, that is highly disruptive behavior.EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff off, its not disruptive at all, how do you get off with three hundred edits and a single purpose account accusing me of anything - I give a funky about libya I am a neutral, cited info - so what - this topic is a complete content fork. I appreciate you are an experienced neutral wikipedia contributor and I was looking at your edit history and thanks for that. Battle for Tripoli is a false representation of reality. SOome reports claimed there was a battle occurring but after a few days and the unconfirmed claims from unnamed rebel mobile phone and twitter claims it was clear that it was not a battle as anyone would understand a battle at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article shows clear signs of notability and demonstrates an event that to me looks like is going to happen. Gabesta449 edits ♦ chat 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your claim has not foothold in policy or guidelines, an event that looks like it is going to happen is not presently reportable, this allegedly is an online encyclopedia not a news report. If it breaks out then it may have legs but right now its a load of unverified press claims and exaggeration that are refuted on the next press promo loop.Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as content fork of 2011 Libyan Uprising. Read this article, read that article, it's obvious which one has to go. The protestors want democracy is pure OR. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does either article have to be deleted?Rangoon11 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's been renamed; no opinion one way or another about the article, but I'm showing the move of title as part of the title of the discussion. Mandsford 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article show notability however I believe the article could be better organised however I expect this to happen naturally as it is an ongoing event. IJA (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Under construction/2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli) for two weeks.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2011 (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/Battle_of_Tripoli_(2011)&oldid=1138135265"