Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panjshir conflict

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panjshir conflict

[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)

Lack of substantial information/ crystal ball The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a lack of substantial information, which is why Panjshir resistance should be merged into this article. See that article's AfD nom and talk page and this article's talk page for further discussion. Zoozaz1 talk 03:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Conflict between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2021) per nom. I agree with nom there is lack of RS indicating a conflict over Panjshir, ergo "Panjshir conflict" is inappropriate as a name. The sources in the article indicate merely that the remnant ANA forces happen to be headquartered in Panjshir. Chetsford (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC); edited 03:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that both of these alleged groups/ conflicts have only been suggested to have existed since yesterday, and there is far too much conflicting information to reasonably confirm their existence. At this point both are firmly in the realm of speculation, and creating a page at this time is premature. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is getting out of hand, now there's four of them! On a more serious note, this article should stay up, don't particularly care about the name. The IRA forming a redoubt in Panjshir is well attested. As Zoozaz1 said, Panjshir Resistance should be merged into this article. BSMRD (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the rename discussion on Talk:Panjshir conflict, at this point we are at five. Zoozaz1 talk 03:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is ridiculous, I swear I've typed this a dozen times now. No, Merge, No deletions in my opinion. Flalf^Talk 03:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stop unilateraly decretting something should be deleted, especially without looking the Talk page. This has already been up for deletion, and the final statement was a strong no. This is not premature. They are up to something, whether they do it or not is not what we should say, but general press consensus is that they prepare something, with some sneakpeak and rumors by various sources which are likely to be verified or proved wrong in a few hours. Deleting everything now is ridiculous. I feel like I'm going insane Larrayal (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are different types of deletion, this was nominated for A10 before, which is a different type, Zoozaz1 talk 13:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informative article requires no deletion. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to deletion, weak support of rename Calling it a "conflict" before there's any RS reports of new fighting between Taliban and the Resistance in Panjshir (Give it a few days) is premature and possibly Crystal Ball, but I disagree in outright deleting the article. If anything must change, it should be the title, until there's confirmed new clashes. Until then, let the article exist until further reevaluation maybe needed. RopeTricks (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to deletion, strong support for rename It is a conflict of course but it should be named "Panjshir Insurgency" or "Panjshir Uprising". This conflic has a right to get represented in Wikipedia so people can read about it. (User ip: 88.230.225.202) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Let the sources build up over the next few days to see if a merge or rename is justified for this article or the other one. Boud (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion Per above. --Franz Brod (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to deletion Per above. --Kiro Bassem (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, then consider renaming to "Panjshir conflict (2021)". That name might be justified by the conflict involving Lion of Panjshir - tens of years ago during the Panjshir offensives. 89.8.169.11 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this article can be expanded at any time and probably will in the future when more information comes out. BigRed606 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, the other article (Panjshir resistance) has allegedly been targeted for deletion by pro-Taliban groups. Not saying everyone aggreing with the deletion is, but we should stay vigilant. Larrayal (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the other article has been targeted for deletion by unknown "pro-Taliban groups" is patently absurd. Zoozaz1 talk 01:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Zoozaz1; if I were the Taliban I'd want "Panjshir resistance" kept up as it delegitimizes such as resistance movement by ascribing to it totally provincial, versus national, characteristics by calling it "Panjshir resistance" in the same way this article does by inaccurately calling it "Panjshir conflict". Though, either way, Taliban members are welcome to edit WP provided they're not engaged in off-Wiki canvassing. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, sorry for panicking. Although for the stalemate at this point we should be especially cautious about talks of fight reprisal because it could be a third part trying to frame the Talibans or the IRA as disrespecting the peace process and trigger an effect domino. Or the contrary. This page and the revolution one should be semi-protected to avoid vandalism, as speaks of peace will likely occur tomorrow and trigger reactions, and as some Asian press seems to rely heavily on wikipedia articles to get easy information. I feel everyone involved is slowly becoming insane, so less edits from unregistered users would be a benediction. Don't know how or where to phrase that. Larrayal (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, speedy close This is a conflict that has implications all over the world, and it's clearly notable. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A WP:SNOW close is needed by someone not involved. We have an overwhelming consensus not to delete. The merge or rename suggestions are in separate threads, not here. Boud (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.