Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Who does, and who does not, accept that Shahba region is a valid name is not relevant to an AFD discussion. Or at least, those are arguments not based on policy and administrators are obliged to give more weight to policy based arguments. All that matters is that it exists and that reliable sources discuss it. I note that no one has disputed that the de facto administration of this region are using this name. Spinning Spark 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Shahba region

Shahba region (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such area. No reliable sources. The name Shahba is used for Aleppo city itself. This article is POV by certain users with a political agenda (propaganda type of article) Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am going to read the article and remove all obvious unreliable sources, add tags where needed.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 09:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This article was already debated when created when the (semi-) autonomous Shabha region was established and article created. The result of this was keep. No need to discuss this again. The article is about a existing de facto establish autonomous region, with own administrative organs and actual full control over it's present day autonomous region. Offcourse there are people that do not like it's existence. But that does not change it's existence. Wikipedia is not the place to remove something because you consider it's existence not compatible to ones personal political wiches.-- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 10:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The deletion nomination of this article is a blatant example of grave NPOV pushing of the user nominating. It was done by a arab nationalist user, that politically opposes the (multi-ethnic) de facto autonomous regions and cantons established by the Rojava administration in North Syria.

The Shahba region is a self-governed region with it's own Regional Assembly, a council, senate and administration and military counsils defending the self-control of the autonomous region. This nomination is as absurd as a Georgian nominating ' Abkhazia', an Azerbijan nominating Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic an Armenian nominating Nakhchivan_Autonomous_Republic, a Ukrainian removing Donetsk People's Republic, ... Trying to remove already established de facto selfgoverning autonomous regions because you politicaly oppose it's existance is completely against wikipedia phylosophy and grave NPOV pushing.-- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 12:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Do we have an article about al-Baraka vylaiat ? (thats the ISIL name of al-Hasakah province). The case of ISIL provinces and their de-facto existence isnt different from the de-facto existence of this "Shahba" region. Since this region have no historical existence (Shahba is the title of Aleppo city itself not the region around it) and no international, regional or local recognition, then its not a de-facto anything. Its just parts of Aleppo province controlled by QSD.
Secondly, the Syrian rebels are attacking (and will take soon) Tell-rifaat. Turkey is pushing toward Manbij as well. Meaning, very soon, this so called "region", even though its existence is doubtful just like the ISIL provinces, will seize to exist.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
(1) Daesh provinces are not self-governed autonomous entities like those of the Rojavan 'Federation'. Nor does Daehs has governing control over al-Hasakah. Comparing that does not make any sense and says nothing.
Not self governed ! so ? is that a criteria !. For two years ISIL controlled most of Hasakah.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
(2) Shabha Region might be the newest of the 4 autnomous regions of Rojava, but it exists for more then half a year from now. An autonomous self governed region that exists for more then half a year is encyclopedia-worthy and important knowledge.
(3) You're personal guesses/wishes about what will happen in the future have not any relevance to this discussion or wikipedia.-- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 14:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Your political stances (ultra left hippie lets all unite...bla bla bla) have not any relevance to this discussion or wikipedia. What will happen with that region is obvious even to people who live in a bubble. You are creating a fake entity. This is a civil war and land holdings change by the day and you cant give the claims of every militia legitimacy! Just like ISIL provinces have no importance, so are the ones created by the YPG mercenaries.
Last thing User:Niele~enwiki, stop your pushing attitude and do not talk personally to me, focus on the topic like I did before you presumed my "wishes" using your amazing very smart/know all brain. Why did you even replied to my comment !! I didnt come to argue with you, but to say my opinion. Please stick to your own opinion and dont shove yourself in other peoples comments. Please do not reply to me.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
(1) Please refrain of trying to insult other wikipedia users ultra left hippie, smart/know all brain,...
(2) This is an internet-encyclopedia, not a forum. Again you're wishes/guessings are not relevant here. This not a place for pushing political views but for documenting reality for informational and encyclopeditional objectives.
(3) Please stay factual: Shahba region is not created by the YPG as you claim, but as sourced by several conferences held with local representations from all parts of Shabha region, it is governed by the Syrian National Democratic Alliance (TWDS) not by Democratic Union Party (PYD) led Movement for a Democratic Society (TEV-DEM). Military it is under control of the multi-etnic Syrian Democratic forces and in Shahba region is the Army of Revolutionaries not YPG the largest force within Syrian Democratic forces.
(4) Shabha Region has been quite a remarkably stable entity since it included the major town Manbij and it exist for more than half a year now and successfully fully fended of all treads against it's integrity, especially the previous days.
(5) You are only proving all the evidence that this deletion-nomination is fully politically motivated,part of NPOV pushing agenda and coming from a politically objection against its existence, not from a encyclopedian-based neutral point of view. Thank you for that. -- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 16:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
You mean POV pushing, not NPOV (neutral point of view) pushing. Do not play a victim, you are presuming my beliefs, political stance, wishes...etc and I didnt come here to argue with you. You are shoving your nose in other peoples opinions. This isnt a talk page, it a place to support or oppose a deletion, so stop arguing with me and just say you argument without shoving your nose into every word I write.
Now User:Niele~enwiki, can you please revert all your argument with me and leave me alone and restrict your self to your own opinion about the supporting or the opposing of the deletion of this article instead of making my comment a forum ?-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 16:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The article concerns a significant and relevant political reality phenomenon in the region concerned, of clear encyclopedic value, and should as such be kept. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
My main recommendation for the article would be to "de-militarize" it, in particular the infobox, but also the text in general. Shahba region like the three other Rojava cantons is a civilian-political administration concept, not a military concept. There is a lot ongoing in terms of civil administration and society in the areas around Manbij and Tell Rifaat, and I would find it very appreciable if an editor who can read the sources in Arabic and/or Kurdish would elaborate. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
One more point, when I last went through the article some weeks ago, I helped make clear distinctions in every section between on the one hand the claimed region as a the whole and on the other hand the part of it which is actually under administration within the Rojava framework. It seems that later edits have blurred that line, and I think that for the sake of clarity, it should be reinstated. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Still, can anyone show me serious international media using this name for this "region" (Aleppo Governorate)? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Some respectable media like ARA news frequently use it (and for example also the official Iranian FARS agency occasionally does). And this discussion is not about replacing any other lemma with "Shahba region", but about having an additional article for a distinct, additional reality political phenomenon. By the way, geographically "Shahba region" does not denote Aleppo Governorate in its entirety, but only its strip between the Kurd Mountains and the Euphrates, to the north of the city of Aleppo, see the official map of the Rojava administration. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 00:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't know if you consider ARAnews, Hawar news, Dars Agency, and some other Kurdish sites and blogs respectable media sources, but I don't and Wikipedia doesn't. The least we can say about them is that none of them is neutral. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 01:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia does consider ARA news a respectable and professional independent media source, just like all of civilized humanity does, because it is. With ANHA (hawarnews) I would be careful, not because it is "Kurdish" (I do not share anti-Kurdish racism), but because it is the official news agency of the Rojava administration. Talking about official news agencies, for those of us with particular interest in "UN recognized sovereignty", here is the official news agency of UN member state Iran using the term "Shahba region" for the area. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This page started as Shahba Canton not Shahba Region, a page over the newly founded autonomous administrative entity part of Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava.
But because the SDF considered 'Shahba Region' geopolitically a less controversial name than 'Shahba Canton' for now it was more frequently used in official documents and communication.
As a result the 'Shahba Region' name for the autonomous administrative region was more frequently used by sources it was renamed.
This obviously does not change or migrates the subject of the article to 'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region.
That would be very confusing and make this page a battleground page of different parties and would become very messy.
Shahba region/canton' is now renamed to 'Shahba region (autonomous region)' so any confusion to the subject of this article is prevented.
'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region" or 'Shahba region (geographical area)' if this is an existing concept(not used before foundation autonomous entity), should be a different page because it is a completely different subject. 2 different subjects on one page will create a lot of confusion and make this page a battleground of people with different interpretations. Neither-mind the subject of an article should not be changed to something else that it is not. -- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 08:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Still, all this information is OR. There is no notability or even mention of such region (only in Kurdish propaganda). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is undeniable that the Shahba region has its own government and is recognized by at least the local Kurdish population as well as the local pro-Kurdish Arab militias; as such, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. If we delete regions/states for not being recognized, we would have to delete all non-recognized puppet states on Wikipedia like the Republic of Benin (1967), a proclaimed state that existed for one day, had no effective government and was actually controlled by Biafra, which in turn was not recognized by most of the world and collapsed after a few years. If you compare it with this example, the Shahba region is actually more qualified to stay, because it has at least some kind of stable leadership. Applodion ( talk) 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Where is your reference for the name "Shahba region" or canton? Shahba is an Arabic nickname for Aleppo city (see infobox in there), although some people here are trying to imply it's Kurdish. Also remember, the local population in this area are overwhelmingly Arab (see CIA maps). The only thing that is Kurdish in this area is YPG militia trying to make facts on the ground (helped by some users here for the propaganda part). I hope you do some research before commenting here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Even if all Arabs in this area reject this new government, we cannot deny its existence, which proven by Kurdish sources. Even if it is only a Kurdish puppet regime, it warrants its own article by its sheer existence - otherwise regions like the General Government would have to be deleted as well. Applodion ( talk) 09:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
While I see no legitimate case for deleting this article anyway, I would like to point aout that your claim "the local population in this area are overwhelmingly Arab" is simply not true. As the most used and respected ethnic map of Syria by Gulf2000 project of Columbia university shows, the area is very mixed, and the Manbij area majority Kurdish. However, the administration of Shahba region is polyethnic, dedicated to a political agenda of good government and not an ethnicity, and international media reports clearly point to consensus from the ethnic Arab population as well, Link -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 11:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
That map isnt the most used and respected, the CIA map is. Your "Columbia" map (nice move so typical of your "NPOV" nature, mentioning the university but not the author) is made by Mehrdad Izady, a notorious Kurdish nationalist who claimed that Elam and Kingdom of Pontus are Kurdish kingdoms in one of his worthless books (dont start your usual accusations of racism, that guy is the worst type of nationalists). Ofcourse, he didnt have any data to base his funny map. So, you are, as usual, wrong and biased cause the CIA maps shows a Kurdish minority in those areas. (I replied to you cause you are replying to anyone opposing this article, try to give people a chance to breath without your input if you dont like the fact that I replied to you and indicated how unreliable your "map" is).-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 13:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment per Amr's request for my input. With these pages about very recent and highly fluid geopolitical situations we need to be wary of original research, the use of reliable, scholarly sources (as opposed to opinion pieces by Western journalists and Kurdish activist websites) and not becoming a tool for the militias on the ground and their agendas. This goes for areas controlled or contested by Kurdish separatists/autonomists, Arab/Turkmen rebels, ISIL and jihadists of all stripes, etc. These regions have no political recognition beyond the parties/militias that control them. With this article in particular, the "History" section is entirely OR and imbued with Kurdish nationalist advocacy. I hope uninvolved users and admins could read and see for themselves the OR, non-RS and POV language that this article consists of. I do not necessarily advocate deleting any material about the creation of "Shahba" by the Kurdish militias, but I believe a separate article is undue and unwarranted. I think that's why we don't have articles on all of the "provinces" ISIL created in the territories they control and administer, or for those swathes of territory controlled and governed by various rebel alliances throughout Syria. Why should we make an exception with Kurdish militias? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, my impression is that you do not understand the facts on the ground here. The Rojava canton civil administrations including the Shahba region civil administration (having no equivalent in rule of law, effectiveness and sophistication in the "rebel controlled" territories) are neither created nor run by people for being "Kurdish", nor as an enterprise of "militias". -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh, a sophisticated militia. ISIL is much more effective running its "provinces" BTW. Al-Ameer understand perfectly and neutrally (unlike passionate editors who have a fetish for rojava). If what you say is true, then the "Shahba" article wouldn't have focused only on the ethnic history of Kurds in the region. This is just a militia enterprise created by a militia called YPG and its puppets to give a civil face to their military aggression, and its obvious to everyone, specially the international media which dont use that term at all (yea yea, fars agency, we know). Last time I checked, the people of tell-rifaat didnt beg the YPG to invade them.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I find it inappropriate and I regret that the "historic background" section of the article is exclusively focused on ethnic Kurdish history, and I would wish that some editor would add to it to make it more complete. However, your attempt to draw conclusions from an inappropriate bias in a section of this article to reality on the ground is a fallacy. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Honestly, I dont think any editor will do such a thing cause only one group of nationalists (from a Kurdish or pro-Kurdish affiliation) are trying to shove those notions of a historic land bla bla bla.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
It goes several ways, Arab supremacists and Kurdish nationalists and Assyrian nationalists and Turkmen nationalists and so on all have their historic narratives, and seek to push them to the exclusion of all others. Actually this is the most obvious symptom of the tragedy of the Middle East, in my humble opinion (and the Rojava approach is the most convincing attempt to overcome that which I have seen in decades of studying the region). You may feel invited to consider your own attitudes from this perspective. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
My attitude is perfectly fine and much more real "NPOV" than yours, its a reaction to Kurdish supremacist and it is needed to keep their dreams on a leash, specially that they know no limits, they would even claim a neighborhood of a city like Aleppo to be their "Rojava". However, you will not see me writing about how Jazira "canton" has been Levantine and Mesopotamian Semitic for the last 5000 years until refugees and some nomadic tribes came and now, some of their chauvinist descendants, are trying to separate the region from the mother country and call it "Rojava" literally means the West, and what west ? its Western Kurdistan (land of the Kurds !!!!)
Maybe you will understand when Kurdish nationalists in Germany have enough numbers to demand a Bavarian Kurdistan or if the Turkish nationalists established a YPG and started invading the German provinces after 150 years from now.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
You cannot "keep their dreams on a leash" forever. I recommend to you this interview where a PKK leadership guy (sic) says that "we prefer the use of North Syria Federation and call for the removal of Rojava from the name because Rojava denotes a federation of Kurdish identity. North Syria is home to all of its constituents". The add-on "Rojava" is a matter of political need for the people acting on the ground to have broad support among the local Kurdish population for the progressive polyethnic project. If I could decide it, the English Wikipedia would completely replace "Rojava" with "NSR" for the sake of clarity. And I use the term " Rojava" on Wikipedia with that meaning. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 15:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I said the dreams of Kurdish nationalists, not Kurds. For those nationalist dreamers, the end wont be nice if the civil war was over and they had to deal with a unified Syrian army. Anyway, you just used the words of a PKK leader !! an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Amazing. If they want the support of only Kurdish people, then they should stop invading non-Kurdish lands.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Note::::::::: This is over, cause it turned into a forum like argument, Bye.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Strong delete This article is pure OR and, even worse, faking facts. we are not voting here. This artcle simply violates most basic Wikipedia standards of notability and neutrality. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • speedy keep - This AfD vote is just blatant POV pushing. International and personal recognition is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia; the Shahba region certainly exists de facto. The article appears to be written froma neutral point of view so that seems to be a non-issue as well. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 10:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Obviously many users voting "keep" are not aware that this is not a vote. So far, the creator of this article and other users supporting it have failed to provide proof of notability. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 05:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC) reply
This article is just another reason why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is no such thing on the ground, it's all fluid border as part of the Syrian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.117 ( talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have comments by established Wikipedians rather than mostly bickering informed by personal views about the conflict in Syria? The above discussion is mostly useless for determining policy-based consensus.  Sandstein  11:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Sandstein, Please click the news link above, you'll find 17 results, all since June 2016, when this article was first created. Six of those news hits are from Ara news and 2 from Rudaw, both Kuridsh websites. Among all these there is no notable or reliable source. This whole article is OR and has no notability. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 03:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Sorry guys, but this is not a place that exists. Please read the discussion above. Places with the name Shahba exist elsewhere in Syria ( Aleppo, Shahba District), but not as described in this article. No reliable source was provided to support the claim of this region. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 03:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Its a subdivision of a de facto autonomous area. If the article on the larger region was deleted, I'd be more inclineded to agree, but so long as we have that on Wikipedia, it makes sense to have the subregions. They are very much a real concept in that they are not a hoax. I'd be open to considering whether every breakaway/autonomous area of Syria should have its own article in an RfC, but right now, considering the heated exchange this AfD has caused above, the best option is to keep it, maintaining the status quo, because it does seem to be an actual region that some significant portion of people refer to by this name. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but I have to disgree again. There is no reliable source showing the name besides the propaganda of a military side in the Syrian civil war. Does it make sense to make an article for every area under the control of ISIL? I guess not. Inventing new names does not make new facts on the ground. Wikipedia has to be a little more careful with what is allowed to stay as this can be interpreted as taking sides or publishing propaganda/false information. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shahba_region&oldid=1187876039"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Who does, and who does not, accept that Shahba region is a valid name is not relevant to an AFD discussion. Or at least, those are arguments not based on policy and administrators are obliged to give more weight to policy based arguments. All that matters is that it exists and that reliable sources discuss it. I note that no one has disputed that the de facto administration of this region are using this name. Spinning Spark 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Shahba region

Shahba region (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such area. No reliable sources. The name Shahba is used for Aleppo city itself. This article is POV by certain users with a political agenda (propaganda type of article) Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am going to read the article and remove all obvious unreliable sources, add tags where needed.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 09:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This article was already debated when created when the (semi-) autonomous Shabha region was established and article created. The result of this was keep. No need to discuss this again. The article is about a existing de facto establish autonomous region, with own administrative organs and actual full control over it's present day autonomous region. Offcourse there are people that do not like it's existence. But that does not change it's existence. Wikipedia is not the place to remove something because you consider it's existence not compatible to ones personal political wiches.-- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 10:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The deletion nomination of this article is a blatant example of grave NPOV pushing of the user nominating. It was done by a arab nationalist user, that politically opposes the (multi-ethnic) de facto autonomous regions and cantons established by the Rojava administration in North Syria.

The Shahba region is a self-governed region with it's own Regional Assembly, a council, senate and administration and military counsils defending the self-control of the autonomous region. This nomination is as absurd as a Georgian nominating ' Abkhazia', an Azerbijan nominating Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic an Armenian nominating Nakhchivan_Autonomous_Republic, a Ukrainian removing Donetsk People's Republic, ... Trying to remove already established de facto selfgoverning autonomous regions because you politicaly oppose it's existance is completely against wikipedia phylosophy and grave NPOV pushing.-- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 12:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Do we have an article about al-Baraka vylaiat ? (thats the ISIL name of al-Hasakah province). The case of ISIL provinces and their de-facto existence isnt different from the de-facto existence of this "Shahba" region. Since this region have no historical existence (Shahba is the title of Aleppo city itself not the region around it) and no international, regional or local recognition, then its not a de-facto anything. Its just parts of Aleppo province controlled by QSD.
Secondly, the Syrian rebels are attacking (and will take soon) Tell-rifaat. Turkey is pushing toward Manbij as well. Meaning, very soon, this so called "region", even though its existence is doubtful just like the ISIL provinces, will seize to exist.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
(1) Daesh provinces are not self-governed autonomous entities like those of the Rojavan 'Federation'. Nor does Daehs has governing control over al-Hasakah. Comparing that does not make any sense and says nothing.
Not self governed ! so ? is that a criteria !. For two years ISIL controlled most of Hasakah.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
(2) Shabha Region might be the newest of the 4 autnomous regions of Rojava, but it exists for more then half a year from now. An autonomous self governed region that exists for more then half a year is encyclopedia-worthy and important knowledge.
(3) You're personal guesses/wishes about what will happen in the future have not any relevance to this discussion or wikipedia.-- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 14:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Your political stances (ultra left hippie lets all unite...bla bla bla) have not any relevance to this discussion or wikipedia. What will happen with that region is obvious even to people who live in a bubble. You are creating a fake entity. This is a civil war and land holdings change by the day and you cant give the claims of every militia legitimacy! Just like ISIL provinces have no importance, so are the ones created by the YPG mercenaries.
Last thing User:Niele~enwiki, stop your pushing attitude and do not talk personally to me, focus on the topic like I did before you presumed my "wishes" using your amazing very smart/know all brain. Why did you even replied to my comment !! I didnt come to argue with you, but to say my opinion. Please stick to your own opinion and dont shove yourself in other peoples comments. Please do not reply to me.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
(1) Please refrain of trying to insult other wikipedia users ultra left hippie, smart/know all brain,...
(2) This is an internet-encyclopedia, not a forum. Again you're wishes/guessings are not relevant here. This not a place for pushing political views but for documenting reality for informational and encyclopeditional objectives.
(3) Please stay factual: Shahba region is not created by the YPG as you claim, but as sourced by several conferences held with local representations from all parts of Shabha region, it is governed by the Syrian National Democratic Alliance (TWDS) not by Democratic Union Party (PYD) led Movement for a Democratic Society (TEV-DEM). Military it is under control of the multi-etnic Syrian Democratic forces and in Shahba region is the Army of Revolutionaries not YPG the largest force within Syrian Democratic forces.
(4) Shabha Region has been quite a remarkably stable entity since it included the major town Manbij and it exist for more than half a year now and successfully fully fended of all treads against it's integrity, especially the previous days.
(5) You are only proving all the evidence that this deletion-nomination is fully politically motivated,part of NPOV pushing agenda and coming from a politically objection against its existence, not from a encyclopedian-based neutral point of view. Thank you for that. -- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 16:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
You mean POV pushing, not NPOV (neutral point of view) pushing. Do not play a victim, you are presuming my beliefs, political stance, wishes...etc and I didnt come here to argue with you. You are shoving your nose in other peoples opinions. This isnt a talk page, it a place to support or oppose a deletion, so stop arguing with me and just say you argument without shoving your nose into every word I write.
Now User:Niele~enwiki, can you please revert all your argument with me and leave me alone and restrict your self to your own opinion about the supporting or the opposing of the deletion of this article instead of making my comment a forum ?-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 16:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The article concerns a significant and relevant political reality phenomenon in the region concerned, of clear encyclopedic value, and should as such be kept. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
My main recommendation for the article would be to "de-militarize" it, in particular the infobox, but also the text in general. Shahba region like the three other Rojava cantons is a civilian-political administration concept, not a military concept. There is a lot ongoing in terms of civil administration and society in the areas around Manbij and Tell Rifaat, and I would find it very appreciable if an editor who can read the sources in Arabic and/or Kurdish would elaborate. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
One more point, when I last went through the article some weeks ago, I helped make clear distinctions in every section between on the one hand the claimed region as a the whole and on the other hand the part of it which is actually under administration within the Rojava framework. It seems that later edits have blurred that line, and I think that for the sake of clarity, it should be reinstated. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Still, can anyone show me serious international media using this name for this "region" (Aleppo Governorate)? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Some respectable media like ARA news frequently use it (and for example also the official Iranian FARS agency occasionally does). And this discussion is not about replacing any other lemma with "Shahba region", but about having an additional article for a distinct, additional reality political phenomenon. By the way, geographically "Shahba region" does not denote Aleppo Governorate in its entirety, but only its strip between the Kurd Mountains and the Euphrates, to the north of the city of Aleppo, see the official map of the Rojava administration. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 00:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't know if you consider ARAnews, Hawar news, Dars Agency, and some other Kurdish sites and blogs respectable media sources, but I don't and Wikipedia doesn't. The least we can say about them is that none of them is neutral. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 01:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia does consider ARA news a respectable and professional independent media source, just like all of civilized humanity does, because it is. With ANHA (hawarnews) I would be careful, not because it is "Kurdish" (I do not share anti-Kurdish racism), but because it is the official news agency of the Rojava administration. Talking about official news agencies, for those of us with particular interest in "UN recognized sovereignty", here is the official news agency of UN member state Iran using the term "Shahba region" for the area. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This page started as Shahba Canton not Shahba Region, a page over the newly founded autonomous administrative entity part of Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava.
But because the SDF considered 'Shahba Region' geopolitically a less controversial name than 'Shahba Canton' for now it was more frequently used in official documents and communication.
As a result the 'Shahba Region' name for the autonomous administrative region was more frequently used by sources it was renamed.
This obviously does not change or migrates the subject of the article to 'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region.
That would be very confusing and make this page a battleground page of different parties and would become very messy.
Shahba region/canton' is now renamed to 'Shahba region (autonomous region)' so any confusion to the subject of this article is prevented.
'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region" or 'Shahba region (geographical area)' if this is an existing concept(not used before foundation autonomous entity), should be a different page because it is a completely different subject. 2 different subjects on one page will create a lot of confusion and make this page a battleground of people with different interpretations. Neither-mind the subject of an article should not be changed to something else that it is not. -- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 08:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Still, all this information is OR. There is no notability or even mention of such region (only in Kurdish propaganda). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is undeniable that the Shahba region has its own government and is recognized by at least the local Kurdish population as well as the local pro-Kurdish Arab militias; as such, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. If we delete regions/states for not being recognized, we would have to delete all non-recognized puppet states on Wikipedia like the Republic of Benin (1967), a proclaimed state that existed for one day, had no effective government and was actually controlled by Biafra, which in turn was not recognized by most of the world and collapsed after a few years. If you compare it with this example, the Shahba region is actually more qualified to stay, because it has at least some kind of stable leadership. Applodion ( talk) 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Where is your reference for the name "Shahba region" or canton? Shahba is an Arabic nickname for Aleppo city (see infobox in there), although some people here are trying to imply it's Kurdish. Also remember, the local population in this area are overwhelmingly Arab (see CIA maps). The only thing that is Kurdish in this area is YPG militia trying to make facts on the ground (helped by some users here for the propaganda part). I hope you do some research before commenting here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Even if all Arabs in this area reject this new government, we cannot deny its existence, which proven by Kurdish sources. Even if it is only a Kurdish puppet regime, it warrants its own article by its sheer existence - otherwise regions like the General Government would have to be deleted as well. Applodion ( talk) 09:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
While I see no legitimate case for deleting this article anyway, I would like to point aout that your claim "the local population in this area are overwhelmingly Arab" is simply not true. As the most used and respected ethnic map of Syria by Gulf2000 project of Columbia university shows, the area is very mixed, and the Manbij area majority Kurdish. However, the administration of Shahba region is polyethnic, dedicated to a political agenda of good government and not an ethnicity, and international media reports clearly point to consensus from the ethnic Arab population as well, Link -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 11:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
That map isnt the most used and respected, the CIA map is. Your "Columbia" map (nice move so typical of your "NPOV" nature, mentioning the university but not the author) is made by Mehrdad Izady, a notorious Kurdish nationalist who claimed that Elam and Kingdom of Pontus are Kurdish kingdoms in one of his worthless books (dont start your usual accusations of racism, that guy is the worst type of nationalists). Ofcourse, he didnt have any data to base his funny map. So, you are, as usual, wrong and biased cause the CIA maps shows a Kurdish minority in those areas. (I replied to you cause you are replying to anyone opposing this article, try to give people a chance to breath without your input if you dont like the fact that I replied to you and indicated how unreliable your "map" is).-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 13:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment per Amr's request for my input. With these pages about very recent and highly fluid geopolitical situations we need to be wary of original research, the use of reliable, scholarly sources (as opposed to opinion pieces by Western journalists and Kurdish activist websites) and not becoming a tool for the militias on the ground and their agendas. This goes for areas controlled or contested by Kurdish separatists/autonomists, Arab/Turkmen rebels, ISIL and jihadists of all stripes, etc. These regions have no political recognition beyond the parties/militias that control them. With this article in particular, the "History" section is entirely OR and imbued with Kurdish nationalist advocacy. I hope uninvolved users and admins could read and see for themselves the OR, non-RS and POV language that this article consists of. I do not necessarily advocate deleting any material about the creation of "Shahba" by the Kurdish militias, but I believe a separate article is undue and unwarranted. I think that's why we don't have articles on all of the "provinces" ISIL created in the territories they control and administer, or for those swathes of territory controlled and governed by various rebel alliances throughout Syria. Why should we make an exception with Kurdish militias? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, my impression is that you do not understand the facts on the ground here. The Rojava canton civil administrations including the Shahba region civil administration (having no equivalent in rule of law, effectiveness and sophistication in the "rebel controlled" territories) are neither created nor run by people for being "Kurdish", nor as an enterprise of "militias". -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh, a sophisticated militia. ISIL is much more effective running its "provinces" BTW. Al-Ameer understand perfectly and neutrally (unlike passionate editors who have a fetish for rojava). If what you say is true, then the "Shahba" article wouldn't have focused only on the ethnic history of Kurds in the region. This is just a militia enterprise created by a militia called YPG and its puppets to give a civil face to their military aggression, and its obvious to everyone, specially the international media which dont use that term at all (yea yea, fars agency, we know). Last time I checked, the people of tell-rifaat didnt beg the YPG to invade them.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I find it inappropriate and I regret that the "historic background" section of the article is exclusively focused on ethnic Kurdish history, and I would wish that some editor would add to it to make it more complete. However, your attempt to draw conclusions from an inappropriate bias in a section of this article to reality on the ground is a fallacy. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Honestly, I dont think any editor will do such a thing cause only one group of nationalists (from a Kurdish or pro-Kurdish affiliation) are trying to shove those notions of a historic land bla bla bla.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
It goes several ways, Arab supremacists and Kurdish nationalists and Assyrian nationalists and Turkmen nationalists and so on all have their historic narratives, and seek to push them to the exclusion of all others. Actually this is the most obvious symptom of the tragedy of the Middle East, in my humble opinion (and the Rojava approach is the most convincing attempt to overcome that which I have seen in decades of studying the region). You may feel invited to consider your own attitudes from this perspective. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
My attitude is perfectly fine and much more real "NPOV" than yours, its a reaction to Kurdish supremacist and it is needed to keep their dreams on a leash, specially that they know no limits, they would even claim a neighborhood of a city like Aleppo to be their "Rojava". However, you will not see me writing about how Jazira "canton" has been Levantine and Mesopotamian Semitic for the last 5000 years until refugees and some nomadic tribes came and now, some of their chauvinist descendants, are trying to separate the region from the mother country and call it "Rojava" literally means the West, and what west ? its Western Kurdistan (land of the Kurds !!!!)
Maybe you will understand when Kurdish nationalists in Germany have enough numbers to demand a Bavarian Kurdistan or if the Turkish nationalists established a YPG and started invading the German provinces after 150 years from now.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
You cannot "keep their dreams on a leash" forever. I recommend to you this interview where a PKK leadership guy (sic) says that "we prefer the use of North Syria Federation and call for the removal of Rojava from the name because Rojava denotes a federation of Kurdish identity. North Syria is home to all of its constituents". The add-on "Rojava" is a matter of political need for the people acting on the ground to have broad support among the local Kurdish population for the progressive polyethnic project. If I could decide it, the English Wikipedia would completely replace "Rojava" with "NSR" for the sake of clarity. And I use the term " Rojava" on Wikipedia with that meaning. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 15:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I said the dreams of Kurdish nationalists, not Kurds. For those nationalist dreamers, the end wont be nice if the civil war was over and they had to deal with a unified Syrian army. Anyway, you just used the words of a PKK leader !! an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Amazing. If they want the support of only Kurdish people, then they should stop invading non-Kurdish lands.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Note::::::::: This is over, cause it turned into a forum like argument, Bye.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Strong delete This article is pure OR and, even worse, faking facts. we are not voting here. This artcle simply violates most basic Wikipedia standards of notability and neutrality. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • speedy keep - This AfD vote is just blatant POV pushing. International and personal recognition is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia; the Shahba region certainly exists de facto. The article appears to be written froma neutral point of view so that seems to be a non-issue as well. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 10:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Obviously many users voting "keep" are not aware that this is not a vote. So far, the creator of this article and other users supporting it have failed to provide proof of notability. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 05:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC) reply
This article is just another reason why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is no such thing on the ground, it's all fluid border as part of the Syrian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.117 ( talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have comments by established Wikipedians rather than mostly bickering informed by personal views about the conflict in Syria? The above discussion is mostly useless for determining policy-based consensus.  Sandstein  11:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Sandstein, Please click the news link above, you'll find 17 results, all since June 2016, when this article was first created. Six of those news hits are from Ara news and 2 from Rudaw, both Kuridsh websites. Among all these there is no notable or reliable source. This whole article is OR and has no notability. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 03:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Sorry guys, but this is not a place that exists. Please read the discussion above. Places with the name Shahba exist elsewhere in Syria ( Aleppo, Shahba District), but not as described in this article. No reliable source was provided to support the claim of this region. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 03:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Its a subdivision of a de facto autonomous area. If the article on the larger region was deleted, I'd be more inclineded to agree, but so long as we have that on Wikipedia, it makes sense to have the subregions. They are very much a real concept in that they are not a hoax. I'd be open to considering whether every breakaway/autonomous area of Syria should have its own article in an RfC, but right now, considering the heated exchange this AfD has caused above, the best option is to keep it, maintaining the status quo, because it does seem to be an actual region that some significant portion of people refer to by this name. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but I have to disgree again. There is no reliable source showing the name besides the propaganda of a military side in the Syrian civil war. Does it make sense to make an article for every area under the control of ISIL? I guess not. Inventing new names does not make new facts on the ground. Wikipedia has to be a little more careful with what is allowed to stay as this can be interpreted as taking sides or publishing propaganda/false information. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shahba_region&oldid=1187876039"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE