Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign involvement in the South African Border 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 merge to South African Border War. Consensus is that this relatively limited amount of content is best covered in the contest of the article about the war. Sandstein 17:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign involvement in the South African Border War

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

Content fork from South African Border War. The problem here is the usage of the term 'foreign' in the article title, when the issue of sovereignty was hotly contested. According to the pro-Apartheid narrative Cuba, etc., were 'outsiders' but in Namibian discourse the main foreign actor was the South African occupation army. It problematic that we have an article title that invites to such open POV issues, when the main article is already quite elaborate on the topic. Soman (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on such flimsy rationale. The issue of foreign involvement in the South African Border War is not a matter of POV or contested narratives, but a well-documented fact. Both sides - PLAN insurgents as well as South Africa - relied heavily on foreign military personnel. Presenting Cuban forces who kept PLAN supplied and trained and even fought alongside the insurgents on multiple occasions as an example of foreign involvement in this conflict is not a pro-apartheid narrative and frankly, as a historian of apartheid, I'm appalled that it's being misconstrued as such here. The article in no way seeks to legitimise South Africa's occupation of Namibia but instead describe all external actors aside from the two primary belligerents who participated. See Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War etc. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a legitimate spinoff from South African Border War (which, at 230k, is not small) and we have several other similar articles on "Foreign involvement in war X". The question to me is whether the current article is ready for main space as opposed to being a draft - as it is rather short (3 paragraphs) - and I'd expect the spinoff to be larger than the content (of the sub-topic) in the main article - and I don't think that is the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there is concern over the context of 'Foreign' might a way round this be to re-title as 'International involvement in the South African Border War'? Dunarc (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it doesn't solve the problem, since SADF also classifies as 'international'. --Soman (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The name for the conflict is the South African Border War. Describing South Africa as a foreign actor in the South African Border War would be inaccurate. Regardless of whether you like it or not, for most of its history the war took the form of a domestic insurgency being waged within what was de facto South African territory. It's not comparable to writing an article entitled, "Foreign involvement in the First Indochina War" excluding France. --Katangais (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Well, the name of the conflict is also the Namibian War of Independence. For Namibians, South Africa was a foreign occupying power. Precisly due to these issues, this FORK of the main article is unsuitable. --Soman (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep Deletion is not cleanup and naming issues have yet to be discussed on the article tslk page. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to South African Border War. The fact that the South African Defence Force absorbed foreign mercenaries from other post-colonial conflicts is a relatively insignificant fact. The bulk of the article is about Angolan support from PLAN with backing from Cuba and USSR. I do not think we need this fork. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename External involvement in the South African Border War and define external to be non-African. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge back to South African Border War. Never mind the POV issues (and sorry, but the name is a problem: if you cannot suggest a different name for it, then the objections over the present name predominate): it's one not terribly long paragraph with the tell-tale characteristic of having as much citation material as it does text. Assuming that it isn't already in there, it's a reasonable size to be part of the main article, without the POV naming issues. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with South African Border War The title is itself obviously problematic, since the border war was contested in South West Africa and Angola, so South Africa was as "foreign" as the other belligerents. "Overseas" may be less troublesome, but it should just be merged into the main article. Park3r (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2018 (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.