Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This seems somewhat contentious, but there is no consensus for deletion. What the discussion is principally centred on is a titling/merge debate, and AfD is not the correct forum for this sensitive issue. I suggest participants open up discussions to outside input regarding these editorial matters Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There is a huge original research problem with this article. The name of the article is where it stems from. The war in Chechnya is for all intents and purposes over. Dagestan, Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria are NOT Chechnya, although they are on the periphery of Chechnya, and problems in these republics are not inherrently related to Chechnya. Not a single one of the sources used in this list mention anything to do with a "guerilla phase" of any Chechen war, and I can't see any which connect it directly with the long-finished war in Chechnya. Looking past the article, the problem is then that we aren't a newswire where we document every minor incident in this region.Russavia Dialogue 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Retitling is an editing issue. Content is notable. Probably needs to be worked into prose, but should be included in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WP:OR is not an editorial issue, it is a policy issue. What the article creator has done is to lump together unrelated events from various Russian republics and has called this the OR/SYN "Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009)". The events themselves are not even necessarily notable, as we aren't a news wire. --Russavia Dialogue 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This story from Moscow refers to rebels [1]. Should it be retitled to something along the lines of Rebels in Dagestan and Insughetia (sp?) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dagestan and Ingushetia, and Kabardino-Balkaria, and dare I say, Karachay-Cherkessia, are not linked to the Chechen War in such a way that is being suggested in this article. It is incorrect synthesis to link them all together in any such way. --Russavia Dialogue 10:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perhaps rename, but a cursory glance at the sources does indicate that violence in certain areas is linked and is not purely OR (though there may be some - what this article really needs is a good overhaul). As for notability, individual facts within an article don't have to be notable, it's the article overall. Joshdboz (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This was nominated for deletion four weeks ago. What has changed? Colchicum (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) is a needed entry and has every thing to do with the Chechen war. If you do not think these attacks are an act of guerrilla warfare or linked to Chechnya you are sadly mistaken. Why this debate is coming up again i dont know, but we need to work together and make it better not try to delete it. Quit with the BS, lies, and misrepresentations of this article. Lets be better than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article creator, can you please provide sources which refer to these individual events which when look at together as the "Guerilla phase of the Second Chechen War". Could you also provide reliable sources which state that events in Ingushetia are directly linked to a war in Chechnya which for all intents and purposes is over. Even Stratfor doesn't make this link, and when ex-CIA kooks don't make that distinction, I feel one would be very hard pressed to find any such distinction linking clan-based in-fighting amongst the Ingush people, and problems in the relationship with Moscow, to a war in Chechnya. --Russavia Dialogue 10:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments at the previous AfD. The article has been visibly improved since the previous AfD, but the argument by nominator remains exactly the same. Its disruptive to nominate the same article for deletion every couple of weeks.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Russavia. "Not a single one of the sources used in this list mention anything to do with a "guerilla phase" of any Chechen war." Offliner (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, problems raised are content/naming issues that can be dealt with on the article talk page, but topic is notable. Perhaps it could be renamed to Chechen insurgency, for example. Martintg (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why, when it has nothing to do with Chechen insurgency. Ingushetia for example have their own problems, as does Dagestan, as do other Russian Caucasus republics, and none of them have anything to do with a long-finished war in Chechnya. --Russavia Dialogue 10:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 10:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. Hopelessly WP:OR. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wait a few more days and then try again. Ostap 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per my reasons in the first proposed deletion. Made up conflicts hugely compromise the integrity of wikipedia. Even naming issues aside, all this article contains is a list of events that aren't even directly linked with each other. Since when was it encyclopedic to make a general violence in -insert area here- article, much less misportray it as an actual war? LokiiT (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is it, a news digest? What's more, how come that in an article supposedly about the Chechen War the words "Chechen" or "Chechnya" do not appear even once? No explanation of how the listed events are related to the Chechen War is given, no explanation of what and why joins all these events together, and not a single source provided in this article is academic in nature—it's all just random news reports. If any items in this list can be salvaged by incorporating them elsewhere, please do so by all means, but the article itself is unsalvageable no matter how you title it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, March 25, 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. Also, when have conflicts been listed? Come back when you have an actual article with RELIBLE sources and I may change my mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that the sourced and documented events in this article are part of a recognized, verifiable whole, either under this title or any other. The overwhelming bulk of this material is related to Chechnya only through loose geographic association, and to the "guerrilla phase" of any recognized war simply not at all. This is a textbook case of original research through novel synthesis. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all original research, some kind of weird fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, merely some collection of links to news articles.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Through out the history of the Guerrilla Phase of the Second Chechen war the contributors of Wikipedia have added attacks from Dagestan, Ingushetia, Karabnio-Balkaria, and North Ossetia. None of these places are Chechnya. Yet we still list them under the Second Chechen war, it only makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted keep above. One of the reasons: there is a continuous "counter-terrorism" operation (one can call a "counter-insurgency" operation) by regular Russian army in Checnya - according to official statements by Russian government. Ramzan Kadyrov declared this phase to be ended a couple of days ago please see this ref. I made this edit. I hope it helps.Biophys (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good. After your edit, we actually have one sentence that has something to do with Chechnya. Now we can remove the rest. Offliner (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that one sentence that actually has to do with the Second Chechen War should be moved to the Second Chechen War article, and this article about non-existent guerrilla warfare in Chechnya can be deleted. LokiiT (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info is at Second_Chechen_War#Status. This isn't even needed as a redirect, which in effect is a WP:COATRACK WP:POVFORK. --Russavia Dialogue 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should preserve this page and improve it. I don't see anybody deleting the other guerilla pages. To delete this one is nonsensical.71.192.134.75 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because they're properly sourced and based on facts. If I created an article for the renewed violence in Ireland, and then named it Guerrilla warfare in the U.K. it would get deleted without a second thought. This is no different. LokiiT (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This more similar to current NATO operations in Afganistan. This is definitely an insurgency - per definition by Russian governement - as cited in this article.Biophys (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is just a POV fork now with a misleading name. The content that is in the article now should be merged into the main article. There is still no actual combat (guerrilla or otherwise) occurring in Chechnya, in fact Chechnya is more stable than its neighbors these days. Also there is no "second phase" to the war, this counter-insurgency operation has been going on for the past 10 years per your own article and the only reason its making news now is because it's about to end. LokiiT (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or expand, I do not see any attacks listed --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that is because the nominator removed them; see below. TerriersFan (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is one of a series of no less than ten pages, one for each year since 2000. I see no benefit in deleting just one of these. Better, that there should be a discussion about whether there should be separate articles or whether they should all be merged into Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War; retitled if required. I also note that the moniator has removed a significant amount of sourced content, here. TerriersFan (talk)
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/Guerrilla_phase_of_the_Second_Chechen_War_(2009)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137892711"