Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/States of Ambazonia

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 and redirect to Ambazonia. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

States of Ambazonia[edit]

[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)

"Ambazonia" is not a functioning nation-state; it's a separatist guerilla movement. As such, it doesn't actually have "states," beyond the declared wishlist of its organization. The content of this article is almost wholly based on primary sources, and a good chunk of it is the apparent invention of the article creator, who among other things has developed fictional "flags" for these fictional "states," for which they're now at ANI. As such, I'm seeking to confirm a redirect to the Ambazonia article, and am taking it here under the expectation that a simple bold redirect would be contested. Ravenswing 21:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, and Cameroon. Ravenswing 21:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary AfD IMO, should have redirected yourself. We'll do fine without this redirect so I've tagged as A10. —Alalch E. 10:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To add: there are no "states of Ambazonia", so I don't even support such a redirect. Deletion is in order, speedy preferably. —Alalch E. 10:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that a controversial redirect is just liable to be reverted, unless "Redirect" is the confirmed result of an AfD. This would also immunize the article against recreation, which simple deletion doesn't do automatically. (And by the bye, an article that might be plausibly redirected is ineligible for speedying.) Ravenswing 11:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this hoax-laden redirect needs to exist. —Alalch E. 11:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no "states" of Amabazonia except in the mind of Wikipedia vandals and petty fanfic regalia cruft pushers. A redirect would entertain that there is some basis to this concept which exists in RS, and I see no evidence for that. For the same reason, "Mongolian lunar colonies" and "Video games in Medieval Europe" do not exist as redirects, because they do not exist currently, have not existed in the past, and have not been seriously proposed to exist in the future as reflected by RS. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except those examples don't hold water. This article does exist currently, has been proposed to exist, and unless it gets salted, has the possibility to be recreated down the road. (Never mind that nonexistence is no bar, considering the tens of thousands of redirects of fictional concepts, places, institutions and characters.) Ravenswing 18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I ended my examples by "as reflected by RS". Ambazonia itself isn't exactly extant either, but its proposed existence is at the center of an ongoing armed and political conflict which has been heavily covered in the media and now some scholarship. I think what you're suggesting would mean any one Wikipedia editor could cause a WP:FAITACCOMPLI simply by creating a single bogus article and then forcing us to try and redirect it, when it should have never existed in any capacity before. I'm willing to change my mind if we see that the Ambazonia Interim Government has proposed subnational states in their claimed territory along the lines of the US or Nigeria, since that makes this a plausible search redirect for readers, but I'm not seeing that at the moment. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Lean merged - For the original version. It made sense of the deleting that article, as the original was already exist.

Through redirecting to the original Ambazonia, and expanded it's delete feels warranted yet. As for now, I'm thinking a bit that the redirected page should will be merged with the History of Cameroon and/or Anglophone Crisis. Along maybe reviving it's original infobox, if the few disorganized Ambazonian separatist guerrilla groups. Has formed a military coalition/unified paramilitary group aganist the Cameroonian government. But, as it stand in March 2023, as it seems for some reason, they still are disorganized both military and politically, if the information avaliable is scares in that civil conflict. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article history and then redirect to Ambazonia per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOR. It's clear that the States of Ambazonia is a WP:POVPUSH article designed to present the goals of the Ambazonia guerilla movement as fact/reality. It's supported by primary sources with a political agenda rather than neutral sources; thereby violating policies on WP:No Original Research and WP:Neutral Point of View. As such, I think all record of the article should be deleted to prevent a merge of this WP:POV/WP:OR material into the target article and then it should be redirected. I see no problem with including content on the "State of Ambazonia" as a concept in the Ambazonia article given that it's an idea motivating conflict/events in Cameroon provided that material comes from reliable and neutral secondary and tertiary sources, and the material about the 'State of Ambazonia' is presented not as a fact but as an ideological concept.4meter4 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ravenswing and 4meter4 said it best. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:11, 23 March 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.