Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Front–Free Syrian Army 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete, but failing that there seems to be agreement about renaming the article.  Sandstein  12:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Front–Free Syrian Army conflict

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. One rebel group takes over a single position from another group, with a handful of fighters killed in the skirmish, and suddenly we have a new "conflict" on our hands? This is reminiscent of back when the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham started elbowing out other rebel groups in a few places and the Western media was all abuzz about some "new front" opening up in the war—but now, of course, we've seen rebels of all ideological stripes actively collaborate with ISIS, and no sustained fighting has yet materialised. The armed opposition in Syria is a motley collection of disparate groups with differing ideologies, aims, and mindsets, and it's entirely natural that such a disorganised mass will have internal scuffles, spats, and turf wars. Heck, there have even been reports of clashes between pro-government militia as well. If anything, a page called Infighting between rebel groups in the Syrian Civil War or something similar should be created for this and similar incidents. Generalising some protracted "conflict" from one incident is not acceptable. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  05:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename I agree with lothar's proposal of creating an article of rebel infighting,this is so insignificant,rebel groups are constantly fighting with each other sometimes,and an article about the infightings will suitable,than just making multiple,insignificant articles on every infighting that occurs.Alhanuty (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And also the renamed article must include also the former infighting.Alhanuty (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree The ISIL and Nusra have clashed according to the Reuters source in the article, but no article has to be made for it; it isn't systematic fighting, it has occurred on a sporadic basis.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename per Lothar and Alhanuty. EkoGraf (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename Rename it than. Or just change it to a battle. --SourCreamShoe (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wait until we have solid reliable sources, time-independent from the incident, before we decide that this is a significant incident.  Do we have time-independent reliable sources discussing other incidents of infighting, establishing that it's a notable part of the war?  If so, I wouldn't have any objections to the renaming issue.  Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently Al-Nursa and ISIL are fighting now http://inserbia.info/news/2013/12/al-nusra-isil-militants-clash-in-syria/ --SourCreamShoe (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Delete The situation is not as article states; the FSA had asked the Islamic Front to help the FSA guard against ISIS, apparently []; after reading the article, it seems that they are allies.
 * Of course they would say that, they are doing damage control now so to save any credibility they have left. If it was really ISIS why did it take them a full week to say it? In any case, I'm also for the delete or rename since the conflict is small in scale. EkoGraf (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:00, 24 December 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.