- Saudi Arabia and terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article has been merged and redirected into state-sponsored terrorism and it's last revision is here.
Only four users participated in the AfD discussion, two voted for rename and two for merge. I, the writer of the article, was not active at Wikipedia back then and didn't have the opportunity to participate in the discussion.
The original title was "Saudi Arabia and terrorism" (it was moved by another user), and it contained materials about both the state and the people of the country. Moreover, the article was discussing massive Saudi funding for Wahhabism and Salafism, the ideology behind Islamic terrorism. So merging it into the state-sponsored terrorism article was not a good idea. In fact, only one-third of the article is about state-sponsored terrorism in particular (only the first paragraph of the article has been moved and preserved). I do agree that the article is not well-written, it looks like a bunch of different information that are just put together without being organized and written very well (I'm not good at writing English article), but we should tag it with a couple of templates in this case instead of merging/deleting it, the subject merits a separate entry IMO.
By the way, the article can be expanded more, as there are new materials about recent Saudi support of hard-line Islamic jihadists in Syrian civil war.[1][2] --Z 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your question or point, please? Warden (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wants it unmerged, I should think. The thing is that there are good sources, but on the face of it, Spartaz has a point about WP:SYN there. We're dealing with an editorial judgment call that needs to be considered in the light of WP:SYNNOT, and the nominator cites new sources that the AfD didn't consider. I don't really like the idea of having an article with this title but the request for a discussion isn't an unreasonable one... I'll go with relist in the light of the new source.—S Marshall T/C 19:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the nomination here in seeking recreation right now. The AfD is clear and convincing. Particularly clear and pertinent is MezzoMezzo 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC). I think there is no reasonable option as the next step other than expanding the section at State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia. Perform the merge. When doing so, I expect other interested editors will promptly contribute, especially with regard to a careful use of the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the most reasonable thing to do with the existing article. A proper article can and should be written, and split from the main article. But it has to be written in a spirit of NPOV, intended to inform, not to engage in propaganda. & the degree to which any of us might individually agree or disagree with the POV in the article under discussion is irrelevant; I think this can only be done by starting over.
- As for procedure: If an AfD closes as a merge, it can be appealed here, just like any other AfD close. I think it is now generally accepted that a merge or redirect done as an AfD result has a greater standing than a mere editorial merge, because it's made as a consensus decision, and needs consensus to overturn, and del rev is one way of getting such consensus. Whatever is done at any deletion process can & should be appealed here. We are NOT BURO, and we don't go by technicalities. Procedure is intended to lead to good results, and whatever leads to good and fair consensus results is appropriate procedure, Refusing to hear an appeal because technicalities are not followed belongs in formal legal systems (and I think many of us might think they can be used wrongly and excessively even there, and are the survivors of primitive rules where legal formulae have to be said exactly, just like magic spells.) Just as we don't go by pure voting, & we don't go by strict precedent, we don't go by artificial procedural limitations. We do pay attention to all of these, but we're not bound by them. In the earliest years of WP, there were no effective rules for anything, and a great deal of what was produced was outrageously substandard by current practice. In reaction to it people began developing procedures and rules as complicated as they could devise; every limitation & formality we did there probably needs to be reconsidered, Some, like the narrow interpretation of the scope of Del Rev, we have in practice reconsidered. For that matter, AfD and Del Rev are by far the most effective DR mechanism we have for article content -- I'd even say they are the only effective methods, short of a full AfC. We should bring as much as we can within their scope--they work, with both a greater perceived and a great actual fairness than any other of our procedures. If you doubt that, think carefully about AN/I , and arb com,and AfCUser, or any of the long standing unresolved content problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG. I think you're talking to me. I must have been unclear, or have composed that poorly. DRV reviews the AfD, sure. It was fine. What I mean is that there is no need to come to DRV to get permission to recreate, or to relist at AfD to seek greater clarity on merge instructions, these things can be discussed and consensus developed at the merge target and its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for misunderstanding. Yes, that can be done also. But if the recreation it is going to be contested, it can be useful to bring it here, and this is the sort of article I might want to do so. I don't see how you could relist it atAfD for further instructions--you could bring the redirect to RfD, but that wouldn't do what is wanted. The normal course for further instructions is to ask the closing admin what they had in mind. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (not I was the original nom). These sources need to be worked into the existing article and over time, if sufficient sourced NPOV material emerges to justify a split out editorial consensus at the merge target can agree whether or not to do it but it definatly doesn't belong at this title. Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I was not being clear: Most of the materials in the article were NOT about state-sponsored terrorism, so we can not add them to that article at first place. That's why I thought WP:DRV is the right channel, instead of adding the information to the "state-sponsored terrorism" article and bring the issue up at its talk page. As I said, the article has been incorrectly moved by another user to the "Saudi Arabia and state-sponsored terrorism" title when it was nominated for deletion for the second time, and I think this wrong title influenced voters opinion who voted for merge into the "state-sponsored terrorism" article. --Z 06:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
