Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Emirate of Somalia

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 delete. The article has a single dead weblink as a source. That's not sufficient to support the existence of an article per WP:V. Can be recreated if there are reliable sources describing such a state, rather than the movement that wants to establish it. Sandstein 07:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Somalia[edit]

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

No evidence found that this is indeed a country, article relies on a single source. Fails per WP:OR, and WP:V. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources I found here talk about a possibility of establishing this administrative area. I can't find any sources confirming the date in our article (12 September 2008). I think that redirecting and a mention in the article Al-Shabaab could be a sensible solution. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last news date though is over a year old, there has been no new information about this taking place. A redirect and a mention is a good idea here if this is to not be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shabab and Xisbul Islaam established their own administration over a year ago in Kismayo. The country that you should really be asking yourself if it really exists or not is the Federal Republic of Somalia. By all means though, delete the article, let fantasy-land continue forever. Ingoman (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case looks similar to Afghanistan 1996-2001. First there was Somali Democratic Republic of Siad Barre (analogous to Democratic Republic of Afghanistan). Then a Somali Civil War begins (analogous to Afghan civil war). Various structures resembling government/administration are established in different parts of the country. Some retain the UN seat, international recognition, etc. - Interim presidents (analogous to Islamic State of Afghanistan). Eventually their influence on the ground is reduced to that of a rump state (or even a "new" Government-in-exile is made from scratch), but the UN seat/international recognition is retained - Transitional National Government (analogous to a degree to the Northern Alliance). Currently we have the successor of the TNG - the Transitional Federal Government - retaining full international recognition, but controlling only some limited parts of Somalia (analogous to the Northern Alliance). If we disregard the secessionist (Somaliland) and autonomist (Puntland) administrations/governments - the rest of the territory seems controlled mostly by Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam. Thus in those parts is established an Islamic Emirate of Somalia (analogous to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) - as the Transitional Federal Government is analogous to the Northern Alliance.
So, it seems that if a source is given describing the "Al-Shabaab (and/or Hizubl Islam) established an Islamic Emirate in Somalia, administering territories under their control, headquartered in Kismyao" - then we should definitely keep the article. Regardless if the source is old - maybe it was later dis-established (because of internal problems between the two groups - or because of outside intervention) - but this has to be confirmed by source too - but even if it currently doesn't exist (or is succeeded by different entity) the article will still be valid and notable as it will describe the time of its existence. Also, it is possible that we just haven't found newer sources, but that the emirate/administration still exists today.
On the other hand, if there is not even a single source for this - then maybe the content should be merged into Al-Shabaab or another article. Alinor (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is sources here, I dont like to go out and delete articles on a whim, this article is running on one source currently and if not deleted at the very least be merged someplace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didnt look to hard, though many sources dont describe an exact name for it there are dozens of news articles documenting the fact that Al-Shabab is trying to establish an islamic emirate in Somalia. Ive seen articles from 2010, 2009, and 2008 documenting such a fact.

[[1]]XavierGreen (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is misleading, as it informs that the Islamic Emirate of Somalia exists, which isn't confirmed by any reliable source. We should merge only verifiable facts, not someone's speculations. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That al-Shabaab is notable is without question. That the outfit claims to wish to establish an "Islamic emirate" in Somalia is likewise without question. If they do, no doubt the Somalia article will change to suit. An independent "Islamic emirate in Somalia" article, however, is not supported, unnecessary and would contain no information not found in either the main article or in the Somalia article. Did we create a separate article to describe the regime established by the Islamic Courts Union? No, we did not. Ravenswing 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the ICU article that you list already contains a country infobox with capital city, etc. So, it could be considered to serve multiple purposes - represent the ICU in its aspects of "movement", "government" and "state". In the current case it seems like the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia" administration is composed (or was if the split is not resolved) of two "movements" (Al Shahab, Hizbul Islaam), thus it is not appropriate to use any of their articles for the joint government/state aspects.

Additionally, the ICU rise to power and fall was too quick (less than an year) - in contrast to the 2-3 years in the current case. Alinor (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: And if someone wants to use a country infobox for the Al-Shabaab article instead of the existing one, that's up to interested editors involved in that article. That being said, "it could be considered" has no place in such discussions. We are not here to surmise or speculate. Finally, what does the ICU's duration have to do with anything? We've got articles on ephemeral statelets that existed for days, let alone a year. Ravenswing 13:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it could be considered" - you said that we haven't article for the ICU state regime - and I explained you where it is described. Then I explained why the same arrangement can't be utilized for the current case - "because the administration is/was composed of two "movements" (Al Shahab, Hizbul Islaam) it is not appropriate to use any of their articles for the joint government/state aspects."

"We've got articles on ephemeral statelets" - if this is the case, then why do you object the current article - do you question the existence of "Islamic emirate of Somalia" administration or there are other arguments? Alinor (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ICU regime is described in the ICU article and in the various pertinent Somalia articles; it does not have a separate article. This current occupation - they haven't gotten close to an "administration" yet - can equally be handled in the two movement's articles. As far as the ephemeral statelet articles go, that's not only what we have, without duplication, those statelets uniformly (a) established governments, (b) announced the same to the world, and (c) claimed a de jure territorial boundary which was (b) generally distinct from the larger/former state in which they existed. Should these movements declare (for instance) an Emirate of Southern Somalia, appoint or elect an emir, and display the trappings of a state (such as flags, legislatures, provinces and the like), I would say it'd qualify for an article, in the same fashion as Somaliland and Puntland have. Ravenswing 22:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what the article is describing - the "trappings of a state". It is another thing if you question the validity of explanations/sources. Alinor (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What "trappings?" The article gives a "flag" and a "coat of arms;" those of al-Shabaab. Its "Amir" is purportedly Moktar Ali Zubeyr, whose day job is as the leader of al-Shabaab. It claims that the capital is Kismayo, oddly enough the HQ of al-Shabaab. It has a list of towns with "dates of capture." That's it; no other information on "trappings" is given. There's not an inline citation in the lot, backing up any assertion. Its sole source is a broken link. Nor are there any useful sources given in either the al-Shabaab or the Hizbul Islaam articles, neither of which make any reference whatsoever to this alleged "Islamic Emirate." Truth be told, I've no idea why you're fighting this hard over something that's just this side of a WP:HOAX violation. Ravenswing 13:05, 31 October 2010 (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.

I absolutely love how you guys called my article a hoax and had it deleted. Wikipedia has become a joke. 66.46.109.222 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]