Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panjshir resistance

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]

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]