Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panjshir resistance

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. WP:SNOW keep, the vote is something like 20-2 in favor of not deleting the article. Renames and/or merges are being discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panjshir resistance

[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)

This article copies, word for word, 60% of the text from Panjshir conflict [1]. The remaining text is a hodge-podge of WP:OR from non-RS like Tweets mixed together with some creative WP:SYNTH from RS. Chetsford (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Panjshir conflict into this article. This article is longer, older, and better developed than the conflict article and is not burdened by constant renaming (around 8 or so in the past few hours for Panjshir conflict). Almost of all of Panjshir conflict's text, as mentioned above, is duplicated here. The theoretical difference is that this article is to detail the resistance group while the other is to detail the conflict, but practically at this point with the amount of (shared) content they should be the same article. Zoozaz1 talk 02:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It's copied because you copy/pasted it [2] from Panjshir conflict to Panjshir resistance. (b) Merging this to Panjshir conflict was already rejected as patently ridiculous. We would not merge World War II into Imperial Japanese Navy; we would not merge Napoleonic Wars into French Army; we would not merge War of 1812 into Royal Navy. (c) "Panjshir resistance" fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The existence of such an organization is sourced to Tweets and creative SYNTH. Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did copy much of the material, because it was relevant to both articles. There is clearly a resistance in Panjshir; that is not being disputed. The formal organizational structure of that resistance, as you picked up on, is, but that is separate from the existence of the resistance. This is a very minor conflict at this point, and there is no need nor enough content for two articles. Zoozaz1 talk 02:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no need nor enough content for two articles" Agreed. After we strip out all the non-RS and SYNTH from this one it's just a verbatim duplicate of Panjshir conflict. We can go ahead and delete Panjshir resistance. As you note, there is no need for two articles. Chetsford (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the content is moved, I don't have a problem with merging it into Panjshir conflict instead. Zoozaz1 talk 02:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why an AFD is necessary when the articles could have just been merged (as I proposed on the talk page). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both articles have been a good source of information for me, so I urge that any merger or deletion is done in such a way that vital information on the status of Afghanistan and the conflict isn't lost --KingSepron (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Panjshir Conflict/Islamic Republic of Afghanistan The "Panjshir Resistance" is not an actual organization, just whats left of the IRA in the country making a stand in Panjshir. No reason for this to have its own article when the information within is covered better under one of those two headings. BSMRD (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose a decision be held off until further information and/or developments are available regarding the resistance group. There may be sufficient information to warrant the two separate articles.Sideriver84 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Realistically, this sounds like the most sensible choice. Zoozaz1 talk 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The organization behind the resistance and the conflict itself are two separate things, although I think we may need to wait awhile until both the conflict and the organization become more defined as time progresses before we truly make a decision, we don't know if this will even turn into a full conflict. Flalf^Talk 03:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More discussion has taken place on the talk page itself Flalf^Talk 03:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for deletion I have also nominated Panjshir conflict for deletion, since both pages have the same flaws. There is simply not enough information to verify the existence of either, they were both only alleged to have existed since yesterday, and there is far too much conflicting information at this time. Both pages should be deleted and possibly created at a later date if/ when these topics can be reasonably proven through reliable sources to be based in reality, and if/when there is enough information to justify devoting pages to these topics rather than wild speculation. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. A merge should be considered if there is insufficient material after waiting a few days to see if there is sufficient RS'd material for the people/organisation on one side (the 'resistance' article), and the military events (the 'conflict' article). Boud (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Due to poor information (and reliability of information), it is way too early to talk about deletion, and whether there's an organization, a govt in exile (which for now is still internationaly Ghani), a military operation or anything else, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL either to say there is something or there isn't anything yet. Keep the two articles, merge after a 4-5 days if nothing happens, delete after 8-10 days if more nothing happens. Larrayal (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Improve the article in response to the faults, wait and see whether it will meet notability standards. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Improve the article in response to the faults" The fault is that the article is about a non-existent organization. Can you be more specific as to how we'd improve it? Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for deletion There is simply not enough information to verify the existence of either, they were both only alleged to have existed since yesterday, and there is far too much conflicting information at this time. Both pages should be deleted and possibly created at a later date if/ when these topics can be reasonably proven through reliable sources to be based in reality, and if/when there is enough information to justify devoting pages to these topics rather than wild speculation. --Syed Aashir (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were to delete it because "they were both only alleged to have existed since yesterday", we'd have to delete the new additions to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article, as well, but nobody is proposing that because it's silly. KingForPA (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose At this early of a juncture, deleting it feels like a sort of reverse WP:CRYSTAL situation - assuming that nothing will come of a resistance movement that has already reportedly recaptured some territory. While it remains newsworthy in the current point in time, this is not something that should be even nominated for deletion. Check back in a couple weeks and see what's happened then. KingForPA (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose So far I see no good reason to outright delete the article, the article appears adequately sourced from non-fringe news outlets, and it's pretty much confirmed that Panjshir is not under Taliban control, and that anti-Taliban forces/sentiment are coalescing in that region, which has its own history of resistance. There may not be an officially declared, organized resistance force (It's only been a few days), but it would be premature to pretend there is no activity whatsoever by deleting this article addressing/acknowledging the topic. If it is still determined that the article be deleted, lets at least merge the important info to a parent article. RopeTricks (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose There is clearly a resistance movement in Pandjir. Its organized by two of the most prominent persons in Afghanistan. Macjena (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - a resistance organization led by some of the most powerful figures in the IRA is definitely worthy enough of an article. I agree that there could be recency problems, but I think they can and will be addressed as the events develop. We should avoid blind recentism and stick to well-covered sources, but at the same time we shouldn't rush to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would be willing to support a merge with the Panjshir conflict article, if either proves too scant on content after RS have their say. Goodposts (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion without prejudice to combining articles. The existence of the Panjshir resistance (Second Resistance) is readily verified by searching for sources published this year that mention its figurehead, Ahmad Massoud. It did not pop up yesterday; it is a contingency plan that has now been put into action. (How much action remains to be seen.) 73.71.251.64 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose deletion - this article is the oldest on this subject and documents a topic of substantial relevance to current affairs Dan Wang (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have noted, its way to early to discuss deletion in this developing situation. The existence of the group is verifiable, and is being reported extensively in Emirati, Indian, and Russian media already at the time of speaking. Tajikistan has placed Saleh's picture in its embassy as the state head of Afghanistan, though that one thing has to be verified. What is clear is that the group exists, it is a new formation, and it is being discussed in RS. Hence, there are no grounds whatsoever for deletion at this time. --Calthinus (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This is the only major group still opposing the Taliban, even if it only lasts a couple weeks it's still significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, there are Wikipedia articles for armed groups far less significant then this group.--Garmin21 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, article is notable and well-sourced. This is a pointless nomination and it’s nonsensical that the first thing readers see is the deletion notice. Clear consensus against deletion. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SNOW This group is clearly notable as things stand now, deletion cannot be justified. There may be a case for merging this into Northern Alliance down the road, depending on how much of Northern Alliance 2.0 this is, but taking this action now would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is no WP:DEADLINE so keeping this as is and merging into an appropriate related article down the road can be discussed when the WP:RS consensus has crystallised further. Melmann 18:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Per above. --Kiro Bassem (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Sources indicate that there is a organized resistance to the Taliban in Panjshir, and as such it is notable for an article especially since it includes the acting President of Afghanistan --MarkoOn (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Deletion requests are coming from the pro-Taliban groups. - 2600:1011:B0E8:C271:8485:74E:19D0:E04A

I was about to say something like "don't have bad faith in editions of others" but I checked by myself and that seems indeed the case. So, Strong Opposse. --Jakeukalane (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Speedy Close This is obviously notable as it is the only part of Afghanistan that isn't in the Taliban's hands. It is well sourced, and it is important to document these things on the Internet's primary encyclopedia. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Perserve the article and clean it up. The resistance its self is Wikipedia worthy. -LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 19:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep copious and continous coverage in reliable sources. Nominator should be careful to do a wp:BEFORE search prior to nominating articles for deletion. 69.172.145.94 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per above.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resistance has received substantial coverage from many reliable sources. The article creation may have been a few hours premature, but this type of article is the exact reason WP:RAPID exists. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, only part of Afghanistan that isn't controlled by Taliban, well and reliably sourced, and the resistance itself is notable. Also, the fall of Afghanistan was front-page news everywhere, and because it is related to it, it is receiving attention for opposing Taliban; and it has the Vice President of Afghanistan on the resistance's side. Important and historical knowledge should be preserved, expanded, and improved upon, not deleted. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭ☰ ᐱᒍᐱᕬ (Talk)

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.