Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Iraqi Army


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Free Iraqi Army

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject seems not notable enough, and probably unverifiable: it is currenlty sourced with three references, all of which depend on anonymous sources. Two of these references merely mention something someone calls 'Free Iraqi Army'. The third source (an article in The Daily Star), the only one dedicated to the subject, states that the information about this organization is scarce, that it announced its presence on Facebook and Twitter, and even that «its failure to claim responsibility for any attacks on government targets has led to swirling rumors as to the organization’s members and affiliates – or whether it exists at all». I believe an organization must achieve something more than Facebook presence and a couple of mentions in media or interviews with anonymous members to be included in Wikipedia. Abanima (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep 
 * The other two sources that Abanima did not name are the Voice of America and the British Broadcasting Corporation. If the BBC and VOA take the time to report, then it is wikipedia notable.
 * Several people edited the artice. One editor even reverted his own edit to correct his wording.
 * The article now has a translation into Arabic of the group's name.
 * In any insurgent organization, the members only give their guerrilla names to prevent the break up of cells. That is why Osama bin Laden was called the Sheik for so long.
 * It is good tradecraft to not be known and kill people in secret. After all, that is what small insurgencies do at first. Sneak around. See Ansar Dine article's early history for an example.
 * It is not a walled garden article.
 * "Mighty Oaks From Little Acorns Grow." I do not want to reinvent the article when the organization gets caught killing a mass of people. After all, I do not want to be an enabler.
 * Also, if you have a problem with an article, please start on the talk page. This way discussion and consensus can be achieved.
 * For the above reasones, I sugget to keep the article.Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The BBC seems to think it exists and it's notable enough to report on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Only the Daily Star article gives substantial coverage. The two BBC pieces are both just namechecks, as is the VOA article. So notability is not established yet. It's 4 months since the first of these sources was published, and if there is anything to this group I would expect a little more coverage by now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For British readers who may be concerned (as I was) that this discussion might be treating a notorious red-top tabloid as reliable I must point out that the source referred to above is The Daily Star, not the Daily Star. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, group has received multiple mentions from non-primary reliable sources, however non appear to be significant coverage nor do the sum of them equal significant coverage. Therefore, perhaps it is too soon, and not passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG I have to support deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment what about the rebel army that existed prior to Desert Storm? Wasn't that also the Free Iraqi Army ? This Syrian army seems to be a different entity. Wouldn't the Iraqi opposition in exile military force be the primary meaning? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We could always create a separate article for that Free Iraqi Army, I wouldn't imagine it'd be too hard to differentiate them using brackets. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per non-significant coverage or briefly merge its mention into another related article. Kierzek (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is mentioning them.Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article definitely looks like it needs expanding, but I think it seems notable due to it helping to flesh out the changing dynamics of militia groups within Iraq and showing how the Syrian Civil War is affecting Iraq. According to the Akashat ambush article the attack was initially blamed by some in Iraq on the Free Iraqi Army, suggesting to me that the group does have a degree of organisation meriting notability. Even if it doesn't, and the Free Iraqi Army is merely being used as an excuse to clamp down on Sunni opposition groups, I still think the FIA article would merit notability due to this as it would clearly be having an impact to some extent in Iraq. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, per OP and others. Adel Tigris (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2013 (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.