Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-proclaimed General National Congress


 * 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. The name of the article is generally agreed to be problematic. I am going to move it to General National Congress (2014) and delete the POV name. This does not preclude editors moving to a better name after more careful discussion SpinningSpark 08:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed General National Congress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The content of this article is covered by the Post-2014 elections section of the General National Congress article (which it was merged to, before being reverted). This is a claimed continuation of that body and there is no point in a separate article. The title is also wholly inappropriate and is used nowhere else on the internet except here. Number  5  7  20:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The elected government has clearly stated that this new group is not a continuation of the GNC but a small group of people procaliming themselves to be. It is very POV to claim they are the same body, as User:Number 57 does. To include them in the GNC article would be confirmation they are the same body, which is both factually dubious and not wikipedia's job. This group of people currently runs the national capital, Tripoli, by using armed militias, and the result is an armed conflict. This is clearly notable. Also notable is that their armed groups are sending people round rivals houses to carry out abductions and burn them down - notable and quite different from the GNC that served before, which was more of a parliament. Other much less important groups of politicans, such as Suffolk County Council, get pages, and they are not this notable. As the political situation progresses, there will be more happening- this new grouping has only been around for a few days, so the article will have plenty of time to expand. Contributorzero (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in the GNC article does not give any legitimacy or otherwise to those claims - it merely points out that the claims exist. The comparison with Suffolk County Council is a non sequitur, as that is nothing to do with rival groups claiming to be a legitimate body. Number   5  7  20:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You just changed what you wrote earlier. You said This is a continuation of that body and there is no point in a separate article. but now you have edited it to look like you never said that. Other users please check the edit history. User:Number 57 may be making dishonest edits. Contributorzero (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * * sigh* I changed it (by adding the single word "claimed") to clarify my point because you were being pedantic about it. Number   5  7  20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we please calm down and discuss with some measure of diligence? I agree with User:Contributorzero that there are two separate bodies at play here. Compare: Rump Parliament/Long Parliament. I also think User:Number 57's claim with regards to the name has some merit. Maybe we can come up with something less loaded than "Self-proclaimed ..."?--Anders Feder (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to a reasonable name change- I couldn't find a name that fitted well. Other titles I have considered include "General National Congress (25 August 2014)" "New General National Congress" and "Second General National Congress". "Self-proclaimed General National Congress" just seems the most objective name for a group that proclaimed themselves GNC. Contributorzero (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is comparable to the Rump and Long Parliament. The body has been in existence less than a month - this sort of thing (people and bodies claiming to be the legitimate whatever) happens with depressing frequency in countries without a functioning democracy. If it's still around in a year then it may be notable enough for it's own article, but not at the moment. Number   5  7  21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Plus this article makes it clear that it's a (claimed) continuation of the same body; "The Libyan parliament that was replaced in an election in June reconvened on Monday". This really doesn't need a separate article. Number   5  7  21:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be necessary to claim so categorically that "this doesn't need a separate article" and dig trenches around that position. "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." On Wednesday, the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya stated in a briefing before the UN Security Council that the tenure of the General National Congress "has expired" and that "the former" (not the present) General National Congress had been asked to convene by "Fajr Libya (Libya’s Dawn)". We can obviously not present both sides literally in the naming of the articles or article, but why act as if it is an open-and-shut case when at least two relatively official sources are in disagreement? I hope others will give their opinion on which action will be better too.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The source you present merely cements the case that this is the same body, as I think you have misunderstood the wording - it clearly states that this is the original GNC reconvening - not a new one being formed. Number   5  7  08:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. It says "the former General National Congress" is convening (not reconvening). If a "former Parliament of the United Kingdom" decided to convene, would that then make it identical to the Parliament of the United Kingdom? Obviously not, because it is the constitutional conventions of the UK which supremely define the Parliament of the United Kingdom - not random subsets of former parliamentarians.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If a former body is convening, then it is reconvening – you're resorting to semantics. The British Parliament example is flawed, as it has had multiple versions (following each election), whilst the GNC was a temporary body that has only been elected once. Number   5  7  10:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not "resorting" to anything and there is nothing "flawed" with the example. You are just being obstructive by not wanting to acknowledge that in both cases it is the law that defines the existence and composition of the assemblies, not some subset of its former members.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not "not wanting to acknowledge" the law at all. What I'm saying is that this is a continuation of the body, legal or otherwise, and we don't need a separate article to detail that continuation. I shall leave others to judge the validity of your comparison with the British Parliament. Number   5  7  10:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should focus on who are attending to this Congress sessions. If it's formed by exactly the same deputies I would consider it the same body. But if some members have resigned or, more important, are being replaced by unelected ones, which is highly probable (like Omar al-Hassi), then we should consider that is not the Congress but some other people that claim to be that body. --79.157.177.108 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * But as you yourself say, they are people "that claim to be "that body", i.e. not a different one. Number   5  7  21:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So if someone claims that he is member of the General National Congress, even though he has never been part of it nor has been voted as a representative, is he the General National Congress? --79.157.177.108 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No. But if it needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia, surely the place to do it is a footnote on the existing article, rather than creating a new one. Number   5  7  10:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * yes it is comparable to the Rump and Long Parliament. this article should exist! ( if we delete this the old article will contradict itself, becuase its introductory lede will begin with the word "was" meaning it existed olny before and the footnote will mention that it exists as a new version. i also agree that with Anders Feder that we should replace "self-proclaimed". i propose the new title as "new General National Congress" with a little n, btw the consensus here is that this article should be kept only Number 57 doesnt agree on that Dannis243 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

References
 * Keep: The name is obviously problematic, but it's clear that this entity needs its own article, considering it is one of two rival governments in a sovereign state at this time, a situation attracting a fair amount of international attention per reliable sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does it need a separate article to the existing General National Congress article when it claims to be a continuation of that body? Number   5  7  19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Long Parliament/Rump Parliament comparison is a good one. The new GNC clearly doesn't have the same composition as the old one, and isn't obeying the same constitutional mandate. It does claim to be a continuation of that body, but then again, so did the Empire of Trebizond claim to be a continuation of the Byzantine Empire. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Having had more time to think about that comparison, I have realised that it's completely wrong. The difference between this and the long/rump parliament is that they were two separately constituted parliaments - the long parliament was a normal parliament before it became the "long" one, and the rump parliament was a new one. In this example, the General National Congress is the long parliament (as it is continuing to meet) and the Council of Deputies is the rump parliament. Creating a separate article for this "continuation" is like splitting the long parliament article into two articles; one for its existence prior to the rump parliament and one after (so you'd have three articles rather than two). I hope that makes sense? Number   5  7  19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Number   5  7  10:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2014 (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.