Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–present Libyan factional fighting
There are so many issues that I dont know well how to start. As the previous commenter had said, there had been several post war armed clashes in Libya (almost every month since 2011). That is not an appretiation, but a fact. For example, the State Department document describing '''230 'security incidents' in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012'''. I would not call that ''fairly peaceful'', as some user had done, by ignorance or bad faith. If he had shown a single source stating that Libya is peaceful, I can bring several stating the contraire, as for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/world/africa/libyas-new-government-unable-to-control-militias.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Libya Struggles to Curb Militias as Chaos Grows NY Times, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/libya-chaos-us-allies-responsibility The west must be honest about its role in Libya's violent chaos The Guardian, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-12/world/35498354_1_benghazi-attacks-general-national-congress-requests-for-more-security Political chaos in Libya hampers U.S. probe of deadly Benghazi attacks Washington Post, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/libya/chaos-reigns-in-libya-1.1034878 Chaos reigns in Libya Gulf News, http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/22-03-2012/120861-libya_without_gaddafi-0/ Libya without Gaddafi: Chaos and collapse Pravda, http://rt.com/news/libya-chaos-us-oil-989/ ‘The lessons of Libya: Chaos is no surprise’ Russia Today, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/who-s-running-libya-chaos-reigns-after-benghazi-u-s-consulate-attack.html Who’s Running Libya? Chaos Reigns After Benghazi U.S. Consulate Attack The Daily Beast. It seems that for some the notability of an article is based on what notability is given to the issue not by the world press, but by the western world press. What is simply a manipulation is trying to hide or erase facts (the widely expanded ongoing violence and chaos in Libya) based on hundreds of sources, with excuses that would not be applied to articles of the same type. I mean, if this article get a  nomination, every conflict article with a sourced timeline can and should get a  nomination. The contrary would be a crystal-clear double standard, a thing that sadly happens often in WP. My question is: Are we judging this article with the same measures as for example the Libyan Civil War article? If not, that means simply biased censorship. About deleting the article and including the major battles/clashes in the Aftermath of Libyan... I dont think its a good idea, as finally that article would collapse for being too long for comfortable reading (unless there is censorship too in that article, and only pro-NTC content is allowed. I wouldnt be surprised of that). It also seems at least strange to me that a user who had contributed to the article (that means he thought it was an interesing and necessary article), surprisingly and suddenly decides that the article aint got notability no more. Why that 360º change? Oh, and last but not least, I had to point the author of the nomination about the death toll. I didnt add any "Mol" source about 500 killed in Libya fighting in 2012, could you be more explicit? The same infobox article states that 1371-1397 persons had been killed since late 2011 in armed clashes (a probably low appretiation, it wasnt me who added it to the infobox), and that toll only includes people killed until October 2012 (the killing of US ambassador in Benghazi by former "rebels"). According to http://uwcci.com/HRC_Background_Guide.pdf this paper presented in 2012 at the UN Human Rights Council by the United World Colleges, the Libyan factional fighting is one of the few (only a dozen) conflicts (Iraqi insurgency, Afghan War, Syrian Civil War, Sudan conflict, Colombian conflict, Northern Mali conflict, Somali Civil War, Mexican drug conflict, Congo conflict, North-West Pakistan conflict and Egyptian War in Sinai) that claimed more that 1,000 lifes a year. So that 500 person figure is at least dubious, for not saying not reliable. Regards
— User:HCPUNXKID, 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)