Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of the Arab Spring


 * 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. I am closing this silly deletion discussion. If it's outdated, then update it. If it's misforked, then merge it back up and fork it differently. None of this should be discussed at AfD. There's not a cogent deletion rationale anywhere on this page, really. -- Y not? 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Overview of the Arab Spring

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Out-of-date WP:Content fork of Arab Spring; not IMO a likely search term. Ansh666 04:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  02:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, content already appears to be in a more up to date form at Arab Spring. Although the Arab Spring is a notable subject, as the parent article meets WP:LIMIT, there is a need for two or three sub-articles, the subject of this AfD could be one of them, and the more up to date information on the Arab Spring article can replace the less current information that is on the subject of ths AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Beakman's world? Ansh666 06:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Opps! I was searching for Beakman's World prior to this.
 * Perhaps a summary can be left in the parent article, to help reduce the size of the parent article, and thus make this article a true sub-article. The current parent article is 256k, 156k greater than WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * delete It's in the nature of main articles to contain a summary of the topic, so a summary split-off is inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was thinking that it might be appropriate for a summary-only article on the Arab Spring (as RCLC described and as exists for other subjects, though I'm too lazy to go find one as an example), but unless someone volunteers to do this now, a WP:TNT delete would probably be in order. Remember WP:HEY. Ansh666 20:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, rename or merge back. "Overview" type of articles are bad style per MoS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge upwards. I don't think the "overview" section is one that can reasonably be split off per WP:SS. Looking at the Arab Spring but having never (as far as I recall) edited it, I'd suggest the "background" section would be the best section to split in order to meet the WP:TOOBIG concerns. Alternatively, this could be moved and repurposed to Outline of the Arab Spring – I agree with Ansh666 that an article offering a briefer summary would be helpful, and outlines fulfil that role. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I was thinking of "Outline" articles - no wonder I was confused when the suggestions for "Overview of" came up with very little! I think "Outline" would be better than "Overview". Ansh666 17:38, 22 June 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.