Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenyan invasion of Somalia (2011)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Densaga (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 19 October 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kenyan invasion of Somalia (2011)

Kenyan invasion of Somalia (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY's minimum standards. The "invasion" in question is a reference to Kenyan troops crossing the southern Somalia border to pursue Islamist rebels from the Al-Shabaab group. This operation is a) brand new (it was just reported on today); b) has only been covered by a few news sites; and c) is described by those same news outlets as "Kenyan troops pursuing Islamist militants" or some variation thereof, not as "Kenyan troops invading Somalia". Note that it is quite routine for troops from neighboring countries (particularly Ethiopia) to cross the undefended parts of the Somalian border for military purposes; see, for example, some of the various such border crossings reported on the War in Somalia (2009–) page. This stub thus fails WP:PERSISTENCE since "notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", something which this border crossing reported on today for the first time has not done. Likewise, "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Also note that the only such recent "invasion" of Somalia that was actually characterized as such -- i.e. the UN-sanctioned Ethiopian intervention of 2006-2009 -- has no separate wiki article devoted to it; it is instead covered in the context of the War in Somalia (2006–2009). I therefore propose either a deletion of the stub or a merge with the War in Somalia (2009–) main article. Middayexpress (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is clearly a notable event in Africa's military history and international relations. We don't delete articles about notable events just because they're also covered by newspapers (or whatever your reason is for citing that policy). Deterence Talk 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep—it seems to me that notnewspaper is notapplicable. that guideline seems to discourage first-hand news reports on breaking stories, which this article does not contain. notnewspaper refers us to WP:EVENT to gauge the notability of recent events. that guideline tells us that As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events. on the other hand, it's possible for reasonable editors to disagree here about whether the event is notable, but i don't think that it can be decided on the basis of guidelines alone. also, wp:persistence, cited by nominator as reason for deletion, does say That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. (i'm not cherry-picking excerpts here, since i'm assuming everyone's going to read the guideline). the nominator's point about the word "invasion" is well-taken, though. should the article survive the afd, i support moving it to Kenyan incursion into Somalia (2011), unless future events moot the point.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As something that only happened today, I think an article is premature. Firstly, Wikipiedia is not a newspaper. Secondly, and more importantly, I'm not convinced the event meets our inclusion criteria for events. No lasting effects have been established, and the scope and coverage of the event cannot really be identified yet. I would suggest that the article is deleted, to allow time to pass before we make a judgement on notability. As it only happened today, we could probably also suggest that WP:BREAKING advises that we wait some time before creating an article, to prevent a poor perspective or undue weight being put on an event. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event in military history and international relations. Obviously. Although, the article could do with some more content, that is a reason for expansion, not deletion. Deterence Talk 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. As explained above and can readily be observed on the War in Somalia (2009–) article, border crossings of this sort are actually quite routine in that part of Africa. It's the UN-sanctioned. three year-long Ethiopian intervention of 2006-2009 that's a notable event in Africa's military history and international relations. And even that doesn't have its own article, but is instead discussed in the context of the War in Somalia (2006–2009). Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that we can make such an assertion that this is clearly a notable even in military history. We have no idea what the consequences of this will be, so cannot determine whether or not it is a notable event until some time after. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteor merge into War in Somalia (2009–). Dozens of these "invasions" have happened over the last few years. People really need to look at the larger context. JimSukwutput 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into War in Somalia (2009–). Discounting the trash talk of the offended party, this is at best an incursion. If Kenya decides to conquer and take possession of Somalia, and reliable sources term it an "invasion", then we can start to think about a separate article. Neither of the two marginal sources provided call it an invasion. The only, um, 'source', that is given calling it an invasion is a tweet by an unknown person quoting the Somali ambassador engaging in some trash talk. They chased some criminals across the border who have kidnapped western aid workers, and it's an "invasion"? Puhhhlease.... First Light (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To those advocating Delete AND Merge- This is a legal impossibility based on Wikipedia's licenses. If any thing from an article is merged, it must be retained for legal attribution purposes. (Note to closing admin: this should not be considered a keep or delete vote). Umbralcorax (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who have !voted "keep", please re-read the article. I've copy edited, so that the article is actually based on the sources. There was a considerable amount of completely false information in the version that you !voted to "keep. Both the article title and its (original) content are seriously in violation of WP:NPOV. First Light (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the warning, but the deletion of an article shouldn't depend so much on the state it's in, but on notability according to guidelines. even violations of npov are reasons to edit, not to delete. i think that the nominator and perhaps others are misunderstanding this as well as wp:notnewspaper, and my keep was based on the sources, not how they were used in the article. anyway, your editing looks good.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your keep was based on the sources, why didn't you change the article to correct the outright lies that were in it? Did you not even read the sources? It was an "incursion", not an "invasion". An "incursion" in that part of the world is hardly notable enough for an article, which the sources would have shown you that it was - contrary to both the title and most of the article. So yes, when making a decision at AfD, you need to actually read the sources to see if the article meets notability and common practice with such articles on "incursions". (And my comment, a 'heads-up' to clueful editors and admins, was as much a "warning" as the incursion was an invasion.) First Light (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
maybe you didn't notice that i was the first editor in this discussion to suggest that the word incursion rather than invasion be used? i read the sources, the sources convinced me of the notability of the subject as well as the misapplication in my opinion of the policies cited in the nomination. only the existence of sources and what the sources say are relevant in these discussions, so i didn't feel any urgency in editing. you seem to be upset that i described your comment as a warning, and i'm sorry if that's the case. i didn't mean to insinuate anything negative by it. i just meant that were advising people to be aware of something. this action is commonly described as "warning". also, why does the part of the world where the incursion happens matter for notability?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there have been other incursions that were part of the Somalia conflict that don't have articles, but are part of the main Somalia conflict article instead. The editor who nominated this for deletion pointed that out in his nomination statement. In fact, incursion is not accurate. Somali military sources are calling it a joint operation with the Kenya military. In other words, they were invited there by the Somalia military. "Incursion", at least according to Merriam-Webster, is "a hostile entrance into a territory." They were invited. It wasn't hostile. An accurate title, at least according to those increasingly bothersome reliable sources, would be Joint Kenya-Somali military operation (2011). I have no upset regarding you calling my comment a "warning". On Wikipedia, many editors are used to "warning" in the context of being called out for vandalism, personal attacks, etc. See WP:Warning. I wanted to be sure that other editors would take my comment at face value, rather than the value given it by another editor. First Light (talk)
ok, i didn't mean to give your comment a value. also, i don't really care what the article is called. incursion seems accurate to me, because they're entering into a territory and they're shooting at people in the territory, which seems hostile. you seem to be saying that incursions must be hostile towards the political entity legally in control of the territory. both merriam webster and oxford english dictionary seem to be silent on this point. if you want to move the article to your suggested title, that is also fine with me. i'll drop it now, but i stand by my original point, which is that i think the article should be kept, and that wp:notnewspaper doesn't apply, for reasons i explained above.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per deterrence. Easily meets threshold for notability. WikifanBe nice 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenyan_invasion_of_Somalia_(2011)&oldid=456378758"