Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Islamic Insurgency

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 No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^Assistance! 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Islamic Insurgency

Poorly written, POV article, written by an user (Celebau), whose only contribs are related to this page. Aminullah 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't finished. Feel free to explore the links on Fourth Generation Warefare and the DNI website before passing judgement. - Celebau

• Procedural keep The article has been expanded since the nomination, and the writer intends to improve it further. "What links here" produces about ten incoming links from article such as Taliban. I need to be convinced that a good article cannot be written on this subject, or else I don't see justification to delete. YechielMan 13:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a theory out there called the "Global Islamic Insurgency", or the term has been used by someone of note, and if there are links out there to back it up, then the article should stay. If it is just the users theory, and has not been proposed by anyone else, then it should go, imo. Chwyatt 14:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article was only started today, give it a chance, nominating it for deletion just half an hour after someone starts writing it, instead of asking for sources or discussing it with the writer seems harsh. There's plenty of sources for "Global Islamic Insurgency" as a theory. There's a (Pakistani) Daily Times story which starts "The US administration has failed to recognise that Al Qaeda is now a global Islamic insurgency rather than a traditional terrorist organisation, and so poses a different threat than previously believed, according to a former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Osama Bin Laden unit." [1] which I'm adding as a source. It's also discussed in this essay [2] and by Lieutenant Colonel (Dr.) David Kilcullen here [3] This source [4] discusses the 'Challenges in Fighting a Global Insurgency' in the Summer 2006 issue of Parameters, the US Army War College magazine. This piece [5] 'How to beat the Global Islamic Insurgency' is from the Winter 2005 issue of the Middle East Quarterly. This paper from the the Strategic Studies Institute [6] discusses it too. I'll stop at 6 sources but there's plenty of others. Pointing out that this is the writers first article seems irrelevant too, everyone's got to write their first article sometime. Still, we have all our own POV Aminullah Nick mallory 14:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an non-notable unsourced conspiracy theory that has not been published in leading peer reviewed scientific journals. It's a POV fork-like attempt to associate organizations like Hezbollah to Al Qa'ida. It's not possible to write in the Hezbollah or Hamas article that they are terrorist organizations without qualifying that statement and basing that on the literature. A link to this article can, of course, be given and surprise surprise, that's exactly what I saw today in the Hezbollah article :) Count Iblis 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a political and millitary idea, not a new type of fundamental particle so it's not going to appear in Nature. I think you'll find that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States and is banned in Jordan. Australia and the United Kingdom both list the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization. Nick mallory 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The listing of Hezbollah and Hamas as terror organizations by these countries is exactly what I mean by "qualifying that statement". Of course, this is not a scientific theory, but there are peer reviewed journals on political and military topics too. Count Iblis 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument for adding a few more sources, not deleting the whole article. Nick mallory 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - given the timing and content of the nomination, it is hard to assume good faith here - poor diction and POV are not reasons to delete. In reply to the argument to delete above: what would science journals have to say about this? For current history/political theory, often the 1st person accounts of what government actors are saying and doing (and related news stories) are the best sources, trying to say one needs peer-reviewed "scientific" journals to support keeping this is a straw-man argument, I would also point out that the article Muhammad has a lack of peer-reviewed scientific journals substantiating the claims. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The articles, academic & newspaper, which are cited above are not necessarily using the term as a standard term for the subject, but simply referring, in lower case, or in a title, to a global Islamic insurgency. Coincidence of title by itself doesn't demonstrate much. No one is asking for scholarly articles, but we are asking for some evidence that it is a specific term applicable to a specific movements, and not merely an alternate name for the overall phenomenon, which is treated at a number of other places. I think it's flawed from the start--and seems to be to start out with a POV. But there's 4 days to see if it can be improved. DGG 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the sources I think you'll find they are discussing the same idea as this article in the same terms as this article in some depth. What exactly do you think a long piece entitled "How to Beat the Global Islamist Insurgency" from Middle East Quarterly is about if not this? You seem to be setting the bar very high for their acceptance as sources here. Nick mallory 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a new article and at present a poor one. However, it has the potential to become a decent one. It should accordingly be permitted to remain for the present. The question of whether Hezbollah and Hamas form part of an alliance with AQ is likely to be controversial, but WP ought to be able to present both sides of the argument. This has the potential to become a satisfactory article providing an overview of the subject, but links (using a 'main' template should be provided to the separate organisations behind the insurgency. Furthermore to AFD an article so quickly is highly inappropriate: give the author a chance to improve it first by applying less devastating templates in the first instance, to enable him to deal with criticisms. AFD is a blunt instrument and the threat of deletion may lead a new author to give up, when he ought not to. Peterkingiron 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Islamic Insurgency vs “War on Islam”. Isn’t the phrase “War on Islam” also just a collection of POVs? Maybe there should be a general article on criticisms of political Islam? There seems to be plenty of criticism of political Islam, so maybe that needs a dedicated article and any relevant points regarding a "Global Islamic Insurgency" could go there. Chwyatt 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If you think the present title is not WP:NPOV, can you suggest a better one? Peterkingiron 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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.