Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed Libyan no-fly zone


 * 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. It seems as though there is enough consensus to keep this article and close this early. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Libyan no-fly zone

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is a summary of recent news coverage. Specifically, WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS provide guidelines against articles with such content. (Since this page was created less than 24 hrs ago and essentially edited and maintained by one editor, I've also warned the author on his/her talk page, instead of the article's talk page.) cherkash (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While the nom is of course correct, there are situations where significant world events are in play, and commonsense tells us that given that an article has been created, we should wait a while (two weeks?) before deciding its fate. In a couple of weeks, if this topic has not developed (which seems likely given the current lack of enthusiasm from those who would have to do the no-fly enforcement), the content could be replaced with a redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising. Normally I would use WP:CRYSTAL to argue for the deletion of a "may be notable in the future" article like this, but I am relying on WP:IAR here since the topic is more than news or general interest—this is part of a chain of events that may be highly significant for the world. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that at any given moment in time there quite a few events developing that many people may find significant or very interesting at that particular moment. This is the very definition of the news. And this is specifically the reason why I proposed deletion of the article. It's hard to argue that speculation (as that's what it is currently!) over a fairly particular and narrow topic of no-fly zone establishment is the subject that deserves IAR invocation. Following this logic, a lot of other news should be equally exempt under IAR, and that would be too much to ask for. So as a way of practical suggestion: it seems to me that this topic may indeed have its rightful place – but on Wikinews instead of Wikipedia. And that was my exact suggestion to the article's author. So I'd say it's still a Delete from Wikipedia's perspective. cherkash (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Apart from any guidelines that might advise against it, it is a valuable article for information on so-far the main international action to be taken against the current Libyan regime. It is not so much news as it is a summary of talks and reports that have taken place, and such information will be poignant even after the Libyan uprising is over. It is likely to have to be summarized and/or moved by that time, but that should be a matter of discussion then. --Ifrit 10:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Press reports indicate that some military planning has already taken place for this proposed no-fly zone. So, irrespective of whether it is ever put into effect or not, there are some historical events to report on and so this does not come under WP:CRYSTAL. Greenshed (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. At best, worth a mention or small section at 2011 Libyan uprising. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is impossible to be sure, I would speculate that whether a Libyan no-fly zone is enacted or not, it will be notable over the long term. I doubt that it will be covered in the popular press in 10 years time but I suspect that academic air power publications (and possibly international relations journals) will infrequently make reference to it.  After all there have been relatively few large-scale no-fly zones in air power history. Greenshed (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This has received a sufficient volume of media coverage and expert opinion to meet WP:N and pass WP:NOT. Based on similar proposed no-fly zones, it's certain to be the subject of further expert coverage in the longer run. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If the deletion police are attacking this one for some legalistic reason, then there must be something seriously wrong with our admin policies. Mike Young (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete only notable if it comes into existence. The absence of a no fly zone would not be notable.  If a no fly zone comes into effect then definitely it would be notable.  However, that requires looking through the crystal ball.  MLA (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising. Unless (and until) such a zone comes into factual existance, there is no need for a fork from the main topic. It's also subject to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL in regards to the volume of news chatter about it, but that only covers part of the notability requirement. Military planning is irrelevant; there are military plans for the US to invade virtually every country on the planet, but that doesn't make them significant or notable. Should this zone ever move from theories floated by the talking heads into something more akin to reality, we can re-create; but being just a proposal means it would be better covered at the parent article.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there multiple reliable sources which discuss these supposed US plans? If yes, then they are (probably) notable.  If not then they are not notable and possibly don't exisit.  In this case the "talking heads" (a prejudicial term for notable commentators and politicians ordering military planning) have done enough talking which has been reproduced in reliable sources to easily justify an article.  Finally, I would expect that even if the no-fly zone is not implemented, it still receives commentary in academic air power publications in the future. Greenshed (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being "reproduced" is only part of the notability criteria, of which GNG only presumes to meet. Simple because people are yakking about it doesn't mean it's notable, and (for sake of argument) just because it has some notability doesn't mean it has enough for a whole article. Nor do your expectations of this possible event becoming some kind of military aviation thought exercise add any sort of notability whatsoever. It's much better served as part of the international reaction to the uprisings on the parent article unless it actually comes into existance.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, plenty of sources, and I don't see this as being a ONEEVENT or NOTNEWS case because it's a major part of a larger occurrance, the actual conflict. It's been an ongoing event, and has had repercussions beyond simply existing or not.  Many countries have supported it, others oppose, the rebels have specifically asked for it to be put in place, etc. It's far beyond a simple military plan, and it's an important part of the revolution, and will remain so in the future, regardless of whether it's actually implemented. C628 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * keep. 1. The Arab League has called for the United Nations Security Council to impose the would-be no-fly zone. For the Arab League to call for a no-fly zone to be imposed on an Arab League member state (even if suspended) is obviously notable. The fact that the no-fly zone would most likely be implemented as very much a Western (NATO) operation adds to the notability. 2. If the no-fly zone is not implemented, then there's almost certainly going to be a lot of claims that by not implementing the no-fly zone, the West failed to prevent crimes against humanity from continuing even though it had the capability. Either way, i don't see the notability problem. 3. newsy style of the article: this was the main reason proposed for deletion. There is clearly a problem in the presentation style of the article, but that requires editing, not deletion. i'll see if i can have i had a go at improving it... Boud (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Due to the military planning, ongoing high-level discussions and international diplomacy involved in this fraught, highly visible topic, this is notable whether or not this gets enacted. This has been a long and escalating discussion among the EU, NATO, UN, African Union and Arab League nations so is not a just one-off news or one event. There's enough complexity from military, legal and political components to merit its own article. Gotyear (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep theres plenty of soruces and its an important part of the revolution in Libya. and its at least important as articles about individual nations participation in the American civil war, which theres sevral of. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep according to WP:NEWSEVENT it is at the very least "very likely to be notable" and the plethora of coverage and analysis to follow make it obviously notable. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is notable enough to meet WP:N. This could be a very important thing that would affect the uprising.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete / Comment.
 * First of all, a comment about most of the "Keep"s. It seems that the recency of events in Lybia (and therefore sheer amount of news coverage it receives) is being confused with notability (in encyclopedic sense) of the specific military proposals we discuss here. Recency and notability are not the same! If you look at old newspapers – and the topics that received major coverage during any given time in history – you'll notice that contemporary notability (and amount of news coverage received) has nothing to do with long-lasting implications or long-lasting notability. Claiming otherwise about current events requires a crystal ball and/or simple guesswork.


 * To give an example: Normandy landings. The operation (basically opening the new front-line against Germany in Europe) required an immense amount of preparation, as well as many proposed and rejected plans with respect to the participation itself (whether it would happen or not), timeline (when it would happen), scale (how many people and military equipment), etc. Would such proposals and alternative scenarios be notable historically? Absolutely, they are. Should they deserve a separate article in an encyclopedia? Likely not. They are correctly folded into a more encompassing topic of the military operations themselves (e.g., Operation Overlord).


 * To give another example: would proposals, deliberations, or plans for any given country to join World War I or World War II deserve individual encyclopedia article for every such country? Those plans and decisions did happen to have serious consequences for every country involved – much more serious than establishment (or not) of the Libya no-fly zone may have – but would you create a separate article for each such proposal? I'm sure the answer of any reasonable editor is "No". So why difference with current events?


 * Any notable coverage deserves its place in the annals of the history, but let's not confuse encyclopedic topics of lasting importance and notability with recent topics which may or may not become such with time. Only time can tell if something will remain a news event, or will have lasting consequences – and therefore whether it will deserve more than (in this case) a section in the article on Libyan uprising.


 * Ask yourself: if this military proposals (which did not even result in any specific action yet!) happened a hundred years ago, would you still think they deserved as much encyclopedia coverage? If not, your "keep" opinions may be subject to a strong recency bias. Again, the distinction is not whether coverage is justified at all (i.e. notability of the event), but whether coverage in encyclopedia is justified (i.e. encyclopedic notability).


 * Let's not turn Wikipedia into media source or a news aggregator. cherkash (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Be Patient This may end up being WP:NOTNEWS but let's be patient and see what happens next. For the moment this article should be drasticly shortened to make it less 'newsy'. @ cherkash Though I completely agree with you that we shouldn't be to inclusionistic here, after tomorrow we will know if this will be implemented any time soon (UN Security Council debates the issue). If it is not, please go ahead and delete this but on the other hand it would be a shame to have it implemented (or sanctioned for that matter) and then having to rewrite the whole article from scraps. - AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait since this is still a current event. Once the outcome has been decided, then we should choose if we want deleted the article and simply resume its content somewhere else, or keep it and rename it with something that doesn't start with "Proposed". I agree with AlwaysUnite that it would be a shame to have to restart the article if this no-fly zone was adopted --— Luccas 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * keep (for now, at least)  There are a number of unique features of this proposal, such as the involvement of the Arab League, tacit support from Russia, and the US reluctance to get involved, which it make it significant from a political aspect, even if it doesn't happen. Lynbarn (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for now. If it needs to be merged later, we will do it then; right now, it's notable. — Nightstallion 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, too early to decide. Flatterworld (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Force Redirect. The section in the main 2011 Libyan uprising sufficiently covers this non-event, and could be expanded a bit if need be. Keeping this bloated page full of speculation does not improve the encyclopedia. I also draw people's attention to the even more newsy page Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to 2011 Libyan no-fly zone proposal if no fly zone is not imposed, which is likely going to happen. --Reference Desker (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Reference Desker. No need to wait. Anarchangel (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Keep. The title might need to be changed, and the issue might need to be reconsidered in the near future depending on the events (is there going to be any no-fly zone or not? And, if yes, who's going to impose it?), but for the time being I see no reason for deletion. The topic is clearly notable.Yannismarou (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's the subject of substantial discussion by reliable sources, so it's already notable - I doubt the WP:CRYSTAL card should be played. WP:NOTNEWS does not exclude all current events from wikipedia (I'd be pretty unhappy with any policy which strove to keep wikipedia out-of-date by a certain length of time). Of course, the situation in reality may develop over time - the article might need a move/rename at some point in future - but that's a matter for normal editing rather than deletion. Who knows, maybe in the longer term reliable sources might subsume this into another issue; we could merge/redirect then, but preempting that by merging/redirecting now would be a crystal problem, I feel. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is no longer being written and maintained by one author. I've joined in and added a Guardian Article about Lebanon's proposal and tabling of a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, now with the backing of Britain and France and lots more media emerging about this formal proposal yesterday. Perhaps it should now be renamed the UN Resolution for a Libyan no-fly zone. The sooner it passes the better though. Anyone voting to delete from now on should be thrown in front of Gadafi's planes to eat a bomb. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia can scale, it isn't an ancient paper encyclopedia. It is just hurting wikipedia's image by trying to cull things while they are still developing. There are still currently a large number of people around the world debating the subject of the article which makes it a concrete topic in history, even if material action hasn't been taken yet. The only other argument is to appeal to paper encyclopedia arguments about space in the finished product, which is just deletionist propaganda. The article is a perfectly fine referenced piece. Wikipedia will also never be completed and will never be perfect or balanced across different topics, so saying that there is currently only one article for any other previous situation doesn't hold water. In the future, those articles could be forked also without causing the detriment to the encyclopedia and users that the OP seems to portray. Ans e ll  21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with everyone saying Keep, there is nothing justifying to delete or merge this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The international responses to setting up a no fly zone to protect citizens of a despot is of historical importance and will likely have remifications for future international policy. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  12:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the above statements. Besides the UN is voting on a no fly zone. If they vote against it and after awhile it seems that no one will participate in such an act than it should be deleted, but until than it should be left alone as it could still go into effect.sol-nemisis —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 17 March 2011 (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.

Note
Just for clarification, I closed the discussion here:, *after* it was closed on this project page. The decision had already been made here, reflecting consensus. It seemed confusing to still be discussing the matter three days later, on the articles page, when the matter had already been closed here. Although I am an "experienced editor in good standing", per Wikipedia merger rules, I want to make it clear that I was not acting empirically. AlaskaMike (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)