Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century


 * 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. There is clear consensus that the content as it exists has problems with original research, and is not suitable as it stands. There are also reasonable concerns being raised that the topic isn't treated as a coherent whole by reliable sources, and as such isn't suitable for a standalone article at all; however, this issue was not discussed in detail. I have no objections to providing a draftspace copy, but only in the understanding that it will not be moved to mainspace by the main author. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century

This article reads like an opinion piece in article space. It has twice been moved from article space to draft space, by User:Praxidicae and User:Bonadea. Both times the author has moved the article back to article space without attempting to discuss with the reviewers. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page (which was the draft talk page when the article was a draft). Maybe the author has a non-neutral point of view, since the topic is one in which a non-neutral point of view is at least as likely as a COI. The article consists in large part of excerpts from main articles, and that content will not be lost by deletion. Other than that, the introductory paragraphs are opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Africa,  and Nigeria. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless cut and paste exercise to try and create an original topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * @Robert McClenon Hello. I'm curious if your perspective of the article "reading like an opinion piece" is one you get directly from reading the article, or if it's entirely anchored by the comments the reviewers left.
 * The article has undergone substantial modifications since each comment- after each comment it was modified to address the concerns of the reviewer. I doubt you'd be of the same perspective if you were reading the article unbiased by reviews of earlier versions.
 * The reviewers left messages on my Talk page - I replied to these messages explaining my perspective. I also left a message on User:Bonadea's Talk page, with no response.
 * Admittedly I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and this is my first article from scratch - I've made edits on a number of existing pages, but this is my first time trying to get a piece from scratch into the main article space. Maybe I should also have been posting messages on the article's Talk page - that seems like something important. I'm curious however why the reviewers didn't voice their concerns on the Talk page though - they're obviously more experienced than I am with Wikipedia, so I imagine if they knew article Talk page discussions were important they would initiate them.
 * About the Actual idea behind the article: Violent Extremism in West Africa is one coherent problem. The fundamental motivation for starting this article in the first place, is to emphasise that the instances of terrorism in the region are simply symptoms of one overall issue. Your observation that the piece contains excerpts from other articles is accurate. However these other articles treat the instances of terrorism as being separate and possibly independent. This is false and misleading, and could possibly stymy attempts to understand the issue at its source.
 * This VICE News article provides a very insightful analysis of extremism in West Africa as one coherent problem - not as scattered instances of unrelated terrorism. This specific insight is what I find missing from all existing Wikipedia articles on the general topic, and that was my motivation for writing this piece.
 * Yes I moved the piece back to article space - Usually this was after multiple messages to the reviewer - on my Talk page, on theirs, with no response. In my experience, moving a piece back into article space (after modifying it based on the reviewer's comments) is the most effective way to get perspective on it. Wikipedia reviewers are evidently more motivated to screen new pieces in the article space, than they are to give perspective on drafts. It's frustrating to think a draft has to wait 4+ months in the AfC space after each resubmission. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion in case other editors think there is content that should be Merged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Violent extremism. No other part of the world has such detailed treatment on the subject. The main article should be expanded first, before developing a sub-article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Tamedu quaternion - First, to answer your question about whether I stated that the article read like an opinion piece based on reading the article or on reading the reviewers' comments, I read the article and was commenting on the article, and concurred with the comments of the other reviewers. Your question is insulting, but I have answered it as if it were a reasonable question.  I read all three versions of the article, and it was my opinion that the changes that you made did not materially address the comments of the reviewers.  You were evidently trying to guess what the reviewers meant, and were trying to make an optimistic guess; sometimes that isn't the best approach.  Second, it is true that articles are reviewed more quickly in article space than in draft space.  The actual average review time is much less than 3 or 4 months.  There is a difference between the mean or mode of a distribution and the maximum of a distribution.  One difference between review of an article that is moved into article space and a draft is that review of an article that was previously draftified is likely to result in its deletion.  You were move warring.  At this point, I don't plan to comment on the content of the article, since you have insulted the reviewers and the review process.  This is not a good way to start as a Wikipedia editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon I'm sorry if you found some of my comments offensive. That was not my intention- I have absolutely nothing to gain from insulting anyone on here - so far I've just been giving my perspective and detailing my experience here editing Wikipedia.
 * So far I've found Wikipedia reviewers more eager to shut down ideas without regard for my feelings, than to offer constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. There also tends to be the tendency for groupthink, where reviewers agree with earlier reviewers/admins without trying to really see things for themselves and get their own opinion on a piece. I've experienced that in waaay more intensity on German Wikipedia, but I feel like it might also exist here to some extent.
 * All of that definitely influences the tone of voice I use here - If you find it somewhat abrasive, then I'm sorry about that. It's not my intention, I'm just responding to the environment.
 * About the reviewers' comments, something that repeatedly comes up involves how "encyclopaedic" the piece is (or rather is not). Someone in the help channel suggested that I restrict the scope of the article to the 21st century, and I modified the article title accordingly. It made a lot of sense, and that way the piece wasn't claiming to give a comprehensive historical discourse on the topic.
 * You mention that I seem to have been guessing what the reviewers meant in their comments. I'm curious what you mean by this, and I'm very open to have you further break down the parts of their feedback I don't seem to be sensitised to. Some concerns I feel I have addressed- like a relative lack of citations, and recentism. More Wikipedia-specific attributes like "being encyclopaedic" are notions I'm completely open to learning about and obtaining feedback on.
 * About review times, the article had spent about three months as a draft before I made the first page move into article space. When it was reverted to a draft, it spent close to a month there. I didn't see any obvious signs that it would be reviewed any more quickly than the first time.
 * In both instances I got a reviewer to provide perspective on the article within hours of moving it into article space. In one case I got feedback in fifteen minutes. Moving the article just seemed like a much more effective way to get perspective on it.
 * Again I'm sorry if you found some of my words offensive - that is in no way my intention. I am very open to learning and receiving helpful feedback, and I do hope we can have a productive and enlightening discussion, thanks. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * In both instances I got a reviewer to provide perspective on the article within hours of moving it into article space. In one case I got feedback in fifteen minutes. Moving the article just seemed like a much more effective way to get perspective on it.
 * Again I'm sorry if you found some of my words offensive - that is in no way my intention. I am very open to learning and receiving helpful feedback, and I do hope we can have a productive and enlightening discussion, thanks. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete laden with problems of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * (weak) Merge to Violent extremism to be the most appropriate solution. There are sources which indicate the notability of the phenomenon specifically in West Africa, but a brief section in the main article will probably suffice. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This article conflates violent extremism with counter-terrorism policy and conflates geographic regions. The article mixes sources which speak of the Sahel (some of which is in West Africa and some not), Coastal West Africa (so a part of West Africa, but not West Africa) and West Africa. Also note the use of sources considered unreliable. I do not see what is salvageable here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At the very least, a list could be added to the main article with entries of movements described as "violent extremism" by reliable sources. Beyond that, I would have to take a closer look. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn Hello- I feel there are issues with your understanding of West African geography which mislead your inferences. You think of these geographical regions (Sahel, Coastal West Africa, West Africa) as being way more distinct and way less inter-related/synonymous than they really are.
 * The article talks about how extremist groups from the Sahel are pervading countries in West Africa. It's one problem - it's one fundamental brand of extremism - there's no way to discuss extremism in West Africa without talking about the Sahel. That's like talking about eg Turkish migration into Western Europe without discussing Turkey itself, or countries in between.
 * Your perspective that "Coastal West Africa is a part of West Africa, but not West Africa" is just wrong. About eighty to ninety percent of countries in "Coastal West Africa" also extend upwards into more central West Africa. You could take a look at Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Ghana, etc.
 * A country like Mali also happens to be about equally spread out between the Sahel and more central West Africa. You cannot speak of these regions as being so distinct when a lot of countries overlap across them.
 * And then do you mind shedding some light on what cited sources are "considered unreliable"? I'm curious what sources you're referring to. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Youtube is self published, there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice News. The article mixes sources that cover different regions/subregions. There's plenty of sources on counter-terrorism in ECOWAS; that would be a far more appropriate subject for an article, that could be reliably sourced. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and strongly oppose merge per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. The article is full of original synthesis, original research, and is supported by self published materials like youtube. Given the inherent problems in the article, there is nothing of value to preserve and merge. Merging would only negatively impact the article on violent extremism by introducing non-verifiable content.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is mostly about disparate events in different countries in West Africa. The sources that link it all together as one idea are either a) sources that probably don't meet WP:V (like the YouTube links) or b) sources about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy. This isn't enough to justify a separate article. There might be an argument for having an article about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy but that content would probably be better suited for the actual ECOWAS article, which currently has no information on this. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2022 (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.