Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panjshir resistance

Panjshir resistance

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Panjshir resistance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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)

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)

(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)

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)

"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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.
  • Realistically, this sounds like the most sensible choice. Zoozaz1 talk 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment More discussion has taken place on the talk page itself Flalf^Talk 03:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support 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)