Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)[edit]

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

This group is not recognized as an official state and the group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. so how can it have an official province. Seems like another propaganda for ISIS like Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL). This article does not meet the general notability guide line and should be deleted. Mhhossein (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason:

Delete both The administrative zones of terrorist organizations are not automatically assumed to be notable. There are almost no reliable sources, so both of these articles should be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i see no solid reason to delete, especially considering the notability of Wilayat al-Sina (province of Sinai) and Wilayat Barqah - both forming significant terrorist groups operating in Sinai and Derna respectively. Their ground control is limited, but there are solid evidences for attempting to administrate those regions; the organizations claiming to be Wilayats are notable by themselves even without the ground.GreyShark (dibra) 13:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09: Yeah, the organizations are notable but this fact has really nothing to do with the notability of these titles. These titles can be notable only when the cities are officially know to be that of ISIS, which is not a truth by now and it won't be in future. As you know, no country has accepted it as an official state, so how can it have it's own notable province? Mhhossein (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of ISIL and provinces is a different issue than ISIL's existence. I would be careful to say "which is not a truth by now and it won't be in future" - this is not an encyclopedic claim, but WP:CRYSTALBALL.GreyShark (dibra) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Recognition of ISIL and provinces is a different issue than ISIL's existence" exactly that's why I assert that these titles lack notability! Just answer the question: who Recognizes these provinces that of ISIL? They themselves or any other countries? Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask you who recognized the Islamic Caliphate during the 7th century conquests? Which nation (except Nazi Germany and its later defeated allies) recognized German occupation of Belgium so it has its own article?GreyShark (dibra) 19:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you exactly compared the Islamic Caliphate during the 7th century and Germany with an organization recognized as terrorist? Btw, please check the titles of the two articles you linked. Mhhossein (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a terrorist group. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrorist group. so what? Mhhossein (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable so called entity, and the article is an unnecessary spinoff of 2014_ISIL_takeover_of_Derna. The so called admin divisions of ISIL in Iraq are even less notable and less deserving of articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article on Ansar Bait al-Maqdis already exists and is enough. EkoGraf (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Ansar al-Sharia in Sinai underwent a split couple of months ago, now the major branch of Ansar pledged to ISIL and names itself "Wilayat al-Sina". Similar case in Libya with "Wilayat Barqah" (former local Jihadist group, pledging to ISIL).GreyShark (dibra) 08:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Libya article is pretty much a clone of 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna but without the depth or quality, and I've merged over the one or two details that were not already duplicated to the Derna article already. An article with an English name is needed for ISIL in Sinai (suggested name). Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion of both - These articles are rather important, given their significance in their participation in multiple insurgencies across the Middle East, and a little more work could make them much better organized. They also describe ISIL branches that are operating outside of Iraq and Syria, which we have little coverage on at the moment. It is much more effective to expand and reorganize those article rather than to delete them outright just because of a few issues. Instead of nominating some articles for deletion, why don't we actually try to improve these articles? Then we will have far more coverage and less work/effort wasted. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no province named as "Wilayat al-Sinai" so that we can improve the articles! Btw, we are not talking about a group and we are discussing the state (a geographical field)!Mhhossein (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terrorist ISIL groups in Libya and Sinai need articles because they exist in different circumstances from Iraq/Syria ISIL. The fake geographic entities/fake governments do not merit articles and creating them is promoting terrorist propaganda = WP:NOTHERE.Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And we are not talking about a state, we are talking about terrorist groups that have pledged their allegiance to ISIL. I agree that it wasn't the best name (Wilayat Sinai was), but until we can fix that redirect problem, we have to stick with the current article title. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the title but also the parts of article talking about it's geographic entities should be edited. Mhhossein (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that we must delete the articles outright. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This means that the article would better be deleted, because we really need a very different article for the group! An article which deserves to stand alone. Surely not this one. Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both These were better sourced than the so-called Wilayats in Syria. However, the sources for both articles essentially state that ISIS affiliated groups are active in Egypt and Libya, and have claimed territory in Libya. In other words, they are a terrorist organization that controls territory, not a state. Their territories should not be assumed to be notable. After doing some more searches, I was unable to find any sources analyzing either Wilayat as a legitimate autonomous zone. Rather, all coverage of the supposed Wilayats consisted of largely trivial mentions in articles otherwise about the terrorist group. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because Daesh is a group of bad people or because quasi-states shouldn't be documented here regardless of their ideology. However, the sourcing to prove this is an actual entity that exists on the ground is pretty thin. I don't think there's enough out there to write a neutral article on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:50, 27 December 2014 (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.