Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somalian Genocide


 * 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   delete. The question here is not notablility, so however many reliable sources won't help. Our question is, is this topic unified enough as a concept to be encyclopedic? Unfortunately no. The article, as it stands, is inherently WP:OR. As Nipsonanomhmata mentions, the sources must show that such a well-defined concept exists. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Somalian Genocide

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Personal opinions / OR Travelbird (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – No verifiable references. Seems like OR to me too. Novice7  |  Talk  06:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. And pretty inept at that, besides very POV. Anyway, there are some hits for "Somali[a][n] Genocide" but nothing that establishes this as a notable term. Sites like Mapsofworld (URL forbidden by our spam filter--but it's a hit here) don't help either. No, this is not notable, and it's not a good redirect either. Drmies (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad article on notable topic with WP:RS sources such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7794918.stm which quotes UN envoy to Somalia: ""There is a hidden genocide in Somalia which has sacrificed entire generations". http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/world/africa/23somalia.html quotes Somalian deputy prime minister Hussein Aideed calling Ethiopian intervention in his country a "genocide". Think this one can be rescued. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced the existing article with one which is sourced to BBC, Times, human rights orgs and African media. I also flagged it for rescue. Please take another look and see whether it now should survive the AFD, thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news archive search for "Somalia" AND "genocide" brings up thousands of results. The references added to the article are already enough to prove this exist, and gets coverage.   D r e a m Focus  19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I too did a Google news archive search for "Somalia genocide" AND "Somalian genocide" and got a maximum of only 60 results. I also did a Google web search for "Somalian genocide" and it initially claimed that there were more than 4,000 results but when I clicked through to the last page there were only 370 results in total and at least 225 of those were spawned out of Wikipedia.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. The article is certainly a lot better--but it does not clarify, for instance, which killing by which group of which other group in which time is supposed to be called "Somalian genocide." That there are lots of hits for the combination of words is not a surprise considering the area's history, and that there are commentators and NGOs that call events or series of events a genocide is also not very surprising--but that's hardly the same as having a well-documented and objectively established genocide of which, unfortunately, we have plenty. See Armenian Genocide, for instance. Or, for comparison, Croatia–Serbia genocide case, where there is a court case alleging a genocide--that's a far cry from observers and some media calling it by such a proper name. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are raising a useful point, but "genocide" is really a term of art and historical usage, and does not require any government or other authority to approve its use. Armenian Genocide is an example of one so-called because enough people have called it that for long enough; no one was ever tried for war crimes and Turkey has never accepted the label. Your concerns go more to weight issues than inclusion, and could be addressed by including a reliable source saying that what's happening in Somalia is not genocide.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just would like to add that genocide scholars have formally recognised the Armenian genocide. Moreover, many countries, and a number of States in the United States, have also formally recognised the Armenian genocide as fact. Thus far no genocide scholar has claimed that there is a "Somalian genocide" and no country has formally recognised that there has been a "Somalian genocide".  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not arguing that people can't use it in this context, far from it. What I'm asking is a sharply-defined definition of the subject of the article supported by reliable sources--more than a Google search or a few mentions. I'll go through some of those references in the next few days, but that's something that the keepers should do as well, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with you Drmies. Genocide is a serious subject that needs to be backed up by genocide scholars. Backing it up with quotes from individuals, newspapers, and the rest of the media isn't enough.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Definitely OR. One particular citation got my attention. The one alleging genocide against "fighters". If they are fighting in a war then it isn't a genocide. But that is only one issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a difference how many newspapers or individuals claim genocide. The genocide scholars have to recognise that it is a genocide. If it isn't recognised as a genocide by scholars who specialise in genocide (fully backed up by their citations) then it hasn't been classified as such. When you do a search for "Somalian genocide" on Google Scholar not one scholarly citation is returned that claims there is a "Somalian genocide". Therefore, according to genocide scholars no "Somalian genocide" has been formally recognised yet. If it hasn't been formally recognised as such, even if/when it has happened, then "Somalian genocide" is just an allegation.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem, Catherne Besteman, professor of anthology at Colby College is already cited in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Catherne Besteman is not a genocide scholar. She doesn't specialize in the study of genocide. There are scholars who specialize in genocide.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article as stands meets Wikipedia notability amd reliable source requirements. Statements that "its not a genocide" because some professor or another didn't say so, or a professor who did say so is not qualified, are effectively original research and synthesis, unless you have a source to back them up. If you do, suggest we add it to the article. In any event, deleting it is the wrong way to go. If we have a neutral article representing all sides of the issue, people can decide for themselves whether its a genocide or not. No article, they can't. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Republic of Turkey still refers to the officially recognised Armenian Genocide as an alleged genocide (because the government of Turkey is still in denial). However, the Armenian Genocide is formally recognised by genocide scholars and by many nations. If there is to be an article about a "Somalian Genocide" that has not yet been recognised by genocide scholars, or by any country, then the word "alleged" needs to be in the title. Not because I am a denialist but because no formal recognition has yet happened (almost four years after Catherne wrote her article).  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scholarly book from Indiana University Press with sections on Somalian genocide. Oh, and here's one where Boutros Boutros Ghali in his 1999 memoir refers to a Somalian genocide According to his Wikipedia bio, "was a Fulbright Research Scholar at Columbia University from 1954 to 1955, Director of the Centre of Research of the Hague Academy of International Law from 1963 to 1964, and Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Law at Paris University from 1967 to 1968", before becoming Secretary General of the UN in 1991.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Not one of them is a scholar that specializes in the study of genocide. Here's a book that says that there was no genocide in Somalia . Do a search for "not one of genocide" in the book itself and it will highlight the sentence on page 21 where it says "The Somalian case was, of course, not one of genocide." It makes no difference in any case. No country has yet recognised a "Somalian Genocide" so it doesn't matter what anybody says because they are all just allegations.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 04:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You are finding information which belongs in the article, and I will add it--it is not a reason for deletion. Note our Genocide article includes information on disputed instances, such as Sudan. You are now arguing that in order to be notable an alleged genocide must have been recognized as such by one or more other countries, but this is not existing Wikipedia policy.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a virtual world full of inconsistency and information that is not factual. It's more of a discussion forum than an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, when we search for things on Google it is information that is stuffed in to Wikipedia that is usually listed first. If Wikipedia says that there is a Somalian genocide then that will convince many people that there was a Somalian genocide. However, if no genocide scholar and no country recognises the fact it is just another allegation listed by Wikipedia that is disguised as fact. I have enjoyed discussing this with you. Thank you for the opportunity.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 13:18, 28 January 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.