Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Khartoum (2023)

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 . Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khartoum (2023)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have still 2023 Sudanese coup d'état attempt Panam2014 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As this conflict shows no sign of ending, as well as the fact that this will eventually differ heavily in the future from the 2023 Sudan conflict, primarily because there will be more battling in other cities. The reason there is similar information on this one to the aforementioned Sudanese conflict is because there isn't too much information as of now because this conflict has only just begun. Vlaseesabas (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is multiple battles in multiple cities TheVoltigeur (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple battles, but this is a very prominent one it also has been labeled a battle by several news sources:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/dozens-killed-hundreds-injured-as-battle-for-control-of-sudan-rages-on

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sustained-firing-heard-sudanese-capital-amid-tensions-98603891

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-04-16/dozens-killed-as-army-and-rivals-battle-for-control-of-sudan

And the list goes, I think we should keep this article. NYMan6 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as most of the focus at least for now is about Khartoum and there is not that much about other regions (at least covered notably). The main article about the events is well structured and to populate this article you will need to copy and paste from the main article FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coup attempt/clashes have spread across multiple cities, and Khartoum is the most notable along with sufficient information in Khartoum alone to designate its own article. Jebiguess (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not a separate event from 2023 Sudan clashes. The sources are all covering that as one event. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 Sudanese conflict has spread not only in Khartoum, this is the worst battle of the conflict so far, with civilian deaths, military captures of stratregic buildings and has been shown prominetly on the media as a battle, not only to forget this is the capital of the country. NYMan6 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heres another source:

https://www.voanews.com/a/fierce-fighting-between-sudan-s-army-and-paramilitary-in-coup-attempt/7051941.html NYMan6 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article is focused on the conflict as a whole, not something called a “Battle of Khartoum”. So it seems to support my point. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The clashes are not only in Khartoum they are a nationwide thing, this is the part where most of the news coverage is being located at only, the name "Battle of Khartoum" has been used by various sources, This has enough information and prominence to designate it's own article as a whole NYMan6 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've not presented any sources showing that the conflict has substantially spread outside of Khartoum. The Kip (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there have been many sources including:

Omdurman source: [https://apnews.com/article/sudan-fighting-hospitals-db1a36308e64f46e7d64de75b4a19598] "Six out of the twenty hospitals in Khartoum and it's neighboring city, Omdurman have shutdown".

Omdurman source #2 [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dozens-killed-army-rivals-battle-control-sudan-98614697] "Fighting was also reported in Khartoum, Omdurman and large attacks at the Khartoum International Airport"

Omdurman and Khartoum North source #3 [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-sparked-the-violent-conflict-to-control-the-future-of-sudan] On the photo title it states the following: "Smoke ries near Halfaya Bridge between Omdurman and Khartoum North.

NYMan6 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Khartoum is the epicenter of the clashes and the capital of the country, so most news outlets cover Khartoum and Sudan as one thing, but articles about other cities and Khartoum alone exist. See Nyala [1],Khartoum Intl Airport [2], this article with tons of information on Khartoum itself [3], and satellite images of Khartoum [4]. There are more than enough reliable sources to uphold the page without a content fork. Jebiguess (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict has reached day 5 and is still ongoing with no signs of stopping, as clashes in Darfur and Southern Sudan as well as locations north of Khartoum become more well-known there is clearly going to be enough information for both this article and the conflict itself to remain separate Sailingsmooth5 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because sources aren't covering other events taking place in numerous other cities doesn't invalidate the events in the capital as separate 31.205.122.127 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As previously mentioned in this discussion, the clashes have spread across the entire country. Having a specific page for the most important and largest battle of the current clashes allows more information to be specifically given on this one sector of the front, while the general article on the clashes allows for a wider overview of it. HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually have enough information for two articles on this subject? Because it seems to me the answer is no, since all I’m seeing is a WP:Content fork. Just because we want more information doesn’t mean we have it. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2023 Sudan clashes. There are zero mentions of a 2023 "Battle of Khartoum" in the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't find any reason to merge, the media has referred to the situation in Khartoum as a battle several times, and some of the sources I listed above have proof of such NYMan6 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable engagement part of the ongoing crisis, and many media refers to the situation in Khartoum as a battle as NYMan6 had mentioned. Yxuibs (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The clashes taking place specifically in the Khartoum area are probably notable enough to merit a separate article. If not, that will become clear later (see WP:LAGGING).

Clashes are taking place all over the country. Covering the ones in the capital, Omdurman, etc. would most definitely not be a content fork.

Draftifying is not only quite unnecessary, but would make the article much less visible, attracting far fewer editors. Absolutely not!

Furthermore, I’m not sure why the nominator acted so swiftly, without allowing the real-world situation to unfold and become more notable. There’s no deadline. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree @RadioactiveBoulevardier NYMan6 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. If this situation develops further into a war, then this would be a part of it and we move draft into mainspace. If it fizzles out soon, then we incorporate this into the 2023 Sudan clashes Bremps! 05:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need drafts, this article will most likely be forgotten, this fits the category of a battle and has sufficent sources and enough evidence from the media to give it it's name and it's title as a "battle" NYMan6 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the battle and the clashes are effectively one and the same for now. You've created an article that already exists. The Kip (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The clashes article is about the country as a whole, this article is for only Khartoum not the full on 2023 Sudan clashes, if were going to make this a productive and good article, we'd have to think about it, most of the article, (2023 Sudan clashes), is full of statements and texts mainly about Khartoum for literally three whole paragraphs, I understand that this is a serious part of it and you probably will find a lot of news coverage and recent coverage about it, but you guys should start reporting in things like Darfur, Nyala and Merowe instead of Khartoum, And put the parts about Khartoum into a section about the battle but smaller and with a link with (See also) at the top of the text for people to enter the main article. Make the article more reliable and full of a lot more information of other occupations/captures across the country.

Do you understand @The Kip

NYMan6 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest I don’t, considering what you’ve written is one singular run-on sentence.

The simple fact is everything contained within the battle article is already within the clashes article. It’s redundant, and especially considering the state of the two, with all due respect please don’t lecture myself or others on what we should do. The Kip (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not lecturing just supporting my claim on this, as you can see their are still lot's of information you should put instead of the tons of sentences you have put in the article, and just give the people reading the article an understanding of the battle.

NYMan6 (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to add any new information to the page because I've been busy cleaning up the quite honestly incomprehensible grammatical errors your additions have contained. Even your response above is one run-on, comma-heavy sentence that barely makes sense.

I understand your enthusiasm, I really do, but please, just stop for a little bit. Review WP:MOS, run your edits through Grammarly, do something so that your content additions are coherent and myself and others don't have to undertake near-constant cleanup work. The Kip (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going take a break for a while today, I know and understand your claim and your ongoing feedback and am trying my best to improve this article. I have noticed my grammar towards this article has gradually improved to the point where we no longer need the large/excessive clean-ups we saw the past week, primarily those are now used for when I upload new updates to the article. I'll tell you I am trying my best to make this a great article.

Thank you,

NYMan6 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a battle of the ongoing clashes so, keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasoliveira653 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify For the moment, there's not much of an indication that the clashes have spread heavily outside of Khartoum, which makes this article redundant. However, wouldn't recommend deletion until the situation as a whole plays itself out. The Kip (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to @The Kip

Draftitfying it would hide it from editors, this article would be forgotten later on, more information is being added constently, I wouldn't put it into a draft, this is a very prominent event currently.

NYMan6 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying is necessary when the entire article is redundant. There's little to no coverage of this battle separate from the clashes as a whole, and the article itself is effectively "airport, palace, military base," also documented in the main article, on continuous repeat. Considering the current state of the grammar and content, this article arguably should've never been published in the first place. The Kip (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, when lots of content is being added by non-native editors (especially IP editors), there are bound to be some grammar errors. If you see something, do something and fix it.

Secondly, the daily timeline structure in the main article is an ad hoc layout that will be restructured if the clashes last long enough.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it's not IP editors but a registered one, and it's not minor errors but a near-incoherent structure to the article as a whole that I've repeatedly had to clean up. I encourage you to take a look at the talk page as well as earlier revisions; I'm not going to continuously play janitor here. The Kip (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - All the arguments supporting drafting the article looks to be more valid than the people arguing to keep it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this is what's heavily frustrating me. I'm afraid an admin will see all the keep votes and assume it should be kept, when in reality most keep votes are voting that way simply because "well, it's notable!" rather than legitimately assessing whether the article should even exist - which it honestly shouldn't, as almost everything within it is already covered in 2023 Sudanese clashes. The Kip (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the escalation of this conflict. I'm inclined to say keep now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The crisis is escalating into a civil war.

TankDude2000 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL, and your argument moreso applies to the main 2023 Sudanese clashes article, not this "battle." The Kip (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Weakish Keep - The grammar along with the layout is horrid, and we should maybe wait to see what notability this may have in the greater picture. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Modified because I think due to the situation I've seen, it may be notable enough, but I still stand that the article needs serious copyediting. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Struck wholly because I have a new opinion. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of grammar has been revised @L'Mainerque especially last night, the citations have been revised, the grammar looks way more better now. It's notability has grown strong as of right now.

NYMan6 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who revised effectively all of the many, many grammar issues you created, I’m going to once again state this article still should not have even seen the light of day until being reviewed as a draft. The Kip (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be notable enough to be retained as a separate article, without merging into 2023 Sudanese clashes. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had this battle been fought and won within 24 hours then yeah it could have been merged. Right now the main article is like 75KB, so WP:SIZE is a factor here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another great claim here, @Knowledgekid87 this article is growing in size constantly, KB might grow rapidly. NYMan6 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The importance of this battle is yet to be discovered; It is still ongoing; in history, it might later on be very important, and deleting it too early would be not very good. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of this battle is yet to be discovered - Which is exactly why it may not be notable, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Whether or not it is imporant in the future is irrelevant to its notability now. Also, keep in mind that deletion is not a death sentence for an article, as most articles can be recreated anyway (well, excluding these ones). ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable battle. Mentioned in multiple news outlets محرر البوق (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely it's a battle--Noel baran (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This article was probably created too early, but now I would say there are enough references to keep it separate from the main article. For the future, I would say if this conflict wraps up relatively quickly, then a merge might be appropriate. Yeoutie (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a real battle occurring in a real conflict. If this article contains almost the same content that 2023 Sudan clashes contains, the events related to Khartoum should be summarized in the main article, with a link to Battle of Khartoum (2023) in case readers want to read a more detailed version of the events in Khartoum. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've observed the progress of this conflict and this discussion, and I have come to the decision to keep this article. As this conflict is now countrywide and has been going on for a bit, I think a separate article for the Battle in Khartoum is reasonable. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability for event, WP:GNG. It is distinct enough from the article that is merge target to be kept seperate. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a battle of the ongoing clashes. There are still many foreign civilians involved. --Peter39c (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This battle will almost certainly be remembered as a distinct installment in the conflict. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2023 (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.