Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigray Defence Forces

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tigray Defence Forces

[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)

Declined AfC draft had been moved 1:1 into mainspace by other editor, then deproded after adding some NYT Sources which do only mention the TPLF (which is the party), should be merged into the TPLF article, on its own fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; the nominator is incorrect to state that

it is only the TPLF (the party) that is mentioned in the sources when he nominated the article for deletion. {One of The New York Times direct quotes that I specifically highlighted by including a quote in the citation template was "Now 66, he is back in the fight with the newly formed Tigray Defence Forces, battling the Ethiopian army he once commanded."}
I removed the PROD template after adding the NYT sources. If the edit history of the Main space article is examined carefully, it will be seen that the citations are unchanged. (However I did highlight the relevant quotations before removing the erroneous "failed verification" tags. This is not intended as a criticism of the nominator - it can be difficult sometimes to see the wood for the trees.)
I moved the draft article "1:1" into main space after it had failed review; after it failed review (for inadequate sourcing) more and better sources were added before I moved it.

As for the truly bizarre notion that a guerilla force with a quarter of a million combatants under arms fighting a major civil war is "not notable", that is simply ludicrous!

In this regard please note that, even if the New York Times and Reuters sources were considered unreliable, English Wikipedia Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article at a particular moment (WP:NEXIST) and that The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. --Bushel C andle 10:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; in line with the argumentation above. References indicate that TDF is different from TPLF. And I think there is a sufficient number of citations of international newspapers that triple-check their information.Rastakwere (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the history of national liberation movements, there has always been an organisational separation between the political and military wings of the movements (the latter most frequently subordinate to the former); and I cannot think of an example of a significant liberation movement where the military wings were not notable per se (and we are talking about a significant movement here). Given the political history of Ethiopia (and Eritrea) in the last quarter of the 20th Century, it is unsurprising that there should be organisational parallels with other liberation movements. That said, we cannot escape RS requirements. I've not had a chance to examine the sources, but those arguing delete so far have not presented any analysis that demonstrates why the sources being cited do not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I concur with User:BushelCandle. --Lord ding dong (talk) 18:45, 9 May 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.