Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSC Movement

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 no consensus. concerns remain about sourcing, but no one is strongly advocating for deletion, and those arguing for keep have provided policy based input. Star Mississippi 17:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SSC Movement[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

SSC Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability requirement, as it lacks significant detailed coverage in reliable sources. Searching for "The Unity and Salvation Authority of SSC" yields exactly five results, including the Wikipedia entry. "SSC movement" + "Somalia" has two results on Scholar. And although some results do show up on Google Books for "SSC movement" + "Somalia" [1] there is no significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail per SIGCOV. Additionally, the article is pushing original research with little to no backing within reliable sources, e.g. the map included in the infobox.

Lastly, and this may be out-with the scope of the AFD, the inclusion of the OR map follows a pattern observed repeatedly in behaviour of long-term vandal Middayexpress where an OR map is uploaded or edited on Commons using a throwaway account [2], and then later inserted into a Wikipedia article using a different account to evade scrutiny [3], this was discussed at length here: User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am the initial author of this article. This organization is fully described in the article source. Even if the article name were inappropriate, changing the name of the article would suffice. And this article name change has already been proposed in Talk:SSC Movement. --Freetrashbox (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not only be reviewed in its most recent edition, but also in previous editions. The version I initially posted does not contain the problems you point out.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment This organization is very well known and it is surprising that Kzl55 and Gebagebo, who have many contributions in this area, do not know about it. This organization was created to be a local government, but is rather known as a militia. The original version of this article clearly stated the name "SSC militia," but someone has since erased it, so you may not have noticed. As you can see from the References in the article, aljazeera and BBC have covered this organization, which is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The structure of this organization is described in detail in Hoehne (2015), and at the time, the author Hoehne was Lecturer at the University of Leipzig. The SSC is described in detail on page 78 of this book (page 79 of the PDF). Please check it.--Freetrashbox (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment As I wrote in Talk:SSC Movement before this AfD was proposed, this organization is often referred to as "SSC". And they are known to have contended with Somaliland rather than Somalia. I suggest searching on ("SSC" AND "Somaliland" -wikipedia). That way, the organization can be found on Google and on Scholar.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Freetrashb0x the article should stay, however it should be edited to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. The entity the article is concerning notable and was the predecessor to Khatumo State. The mentioned map is found in an article published by the National Post.[1]

References

  1. ^ Bell, Stewart (25 September 2010). "Canadian guerrilla". Pressreader. National Post. Retrieved 14 March 2022.
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. If there's any relevant content that contains reliable sources then that could be moved to Khatumo State. Gebagebo (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete -- This is an article with 20 references, at least some of which are certainly RS. It might be appropriate to rename e.g. SSC militia or to merge it into something else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the topic lacks significant detailed coverage in reliable sources. Out of the 20 sources only few are RS, and in that group there is very little detailed coverage of the topic as most sources just mention it in passing. I think merger with Khatumo might be a good possibility, along with a name change to SSC militia as you've suggested. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Kzl55: The fact that this request has been extended twice indicates that neither my claim nor yours was accepted by the community, especially the administrators. We need to elaborate a bit more on our claims and provide the community with some decision-making material.
    I have answered your questions and renamed the article to SSC (militia). Do you consider this to have solved the problem? If you do not think it has been resolved, please tell me what the problem is.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of responses to an AfD request has little to do with community's 'acceptance' of claims, I dont know where you got that from. Some AfDs get more interest from the community due to the nature of topic, while niche articles like this one usually have a slower AfD process. Renaming the article changes very little about the deletion argument, i.e. the topic lacks "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail per SIGCOV". Although some mentions can be found in sources, there is little evidence of reliable sources addressing the subject in detail. Furthermore, the article has problematic sourcing, an example can be found in the opening statement which uses HuffPost as a source, this source is considered unreliable on Wikipedia because "Until 2018, the US edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight." I suggest you remain patient and let the AfD process play out, hopefully more people will see it and respond. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The HuffPost information was added by another account, not the first contributor. In such cases, I would recommend an edit or revert, not a deletion request. (Moreover, this addition was made after you submitted this deletion request. I am using my time to respond to your deletion request, and I hope you will respond in good faith and not waste our both time.)
What WP:SIGCOV requires is "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I presented 19 sources in the first edition of this article. At least references 1 - 5 of these give significant coverage to this organization. Of these, Hoehne 2015 (written by a university faculty member), reliefweb.int (United Nations Security Council), and Al Jazeera are the most reliable sources. Although some sources deal with this organization in a fragmented sense, the inclusion of such sources does not constitute grounds for deletion.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The specific editor who added the content is not the issue in this case, and not a good argument in the context of an AfD. You say you've presented 19 sources, but that is not the case. Out of the 19 citations, 4 are for the same piracyreport.com source (a self-funded self-published site [4]). Self-published sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia per RSSELF. Your citation list includes other self-published Somali blogs e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The academic sources you've listed cite a user-generated forum discussion as the source on SSC [10] (p. 14), or use some of the aforementioned self-published sites as sources [11] (p.45). As said previously, there is little evidence of reliable sources addressing the subject in detail, as such deletion or merger with Khatumo State is entirely warranted. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can find a number of reliable sources citing piracyreport.com. For examples, LANDINFO、FAO, Book by Oxford University Press, and Book by Princeton University Press. By your logic, not all of these books are reliable sources of information, but such an idea is erroneous. Rather, it is reasonable to assume that a source listed in reliable sources is a reliable source for that publisher. --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SSC_Movement&oldid=1082883080"