Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan civil war
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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopedic. Either merge with Libyan Civil War or delete. NPOV issues. I don't see the point of this article as part of Wikipedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The war is a big topic and the main article is already huge. The war topic needs some sub-articles. This article (possibly with a renaming) is a good topic for a sub-article. This article has a lot of material and a lot of references. I just id a fast skim of the article. The article has the same pov as 99% of the sources do on this. The article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, but that is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above + a little clean up and the article is fine. Dengero (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per North8000 & Dengero. Relevant topic, well sourced. Needs cleanup, but see no grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:06, 8 August 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.