Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghuraba al-Sham Front

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. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghuraba al-Sham Front

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a google search for "ghuraba al-sham front" and there was not a single return outside of wikipedia. The reuters which mentions them uses a differet name so either its an editorial mistake or its a modrate faction of another group. There is another group with the exact same name and my guess is that the titles were confused. Also, the name of the title, and the one in the source are different. Pass a Method talk 11:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an arab and I can speak Arabic . Go and try جبهة غرباء الشام on Google and u will find out more about the group. I have watched a TV show hosting a member. the other group u mentiond have nothing to do with syrian civle war and it almost no longer exist after the death of it's founder. u can go throw The front facebook page and u will find out that it was founded on 2011 so they aren't the same 3bdulelah (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person that split the article into 2 different articles. As I mention on the talk page here of Ghuraba al-Sham (jihadist group), they are two distinct organizations with different founding dates, different ideologies and different leaders. The first edit that was undone provides proof that they are different groups. The jihadist group is allied with Al Nusra Front, while the other group is in favor of a civil state. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that the jihadist Ghuraba al-Sham was emerging around 2003-2005. [1] The Reuters article mentions that the moderate group was founded 2 years ago ["What we have built in two years disappeared in a single day"]. It is even clearer that they are two distinct groups because they have clearly different founding dates. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reuters is enough. It's a reliable source for a political party. We have normally been rather inclusive here, to avoid the problem of differential coverage of small movements. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh Did you actually read what i said? None of the sources actually mention the term "ghuraba al sham front". Thid group is non-existent. Pass a Method talk 06:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page under the name Ghuraba al-Sham (moderate group) to differentiate it between the jihadist group with the same name. I believe 3bdulelah moved the page to Ghuraba al-Sham Front; that is approximately what the Facebook page is called. A Google Translate translation for part of what it written on the Facebook page comes up with "Front strangers Sham operating in Aleppo." The 2 references mention a group operating in Aleppo; the linked Facebook page mentions it as well. The group does exist; it should just be moved back to Ghuraba al-Sham (moderate group). I tried to do it myself, but an admin has to do it for some reason.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Mentioned here, here, here, here and here as well. Someone should try to figure out if there are indeed two groups called Ghuraba al-Sham, but at least one is somewhat notable. Alarabiya talks of "Ghuraba al-Sham comprising mainly Turks and fighters from former Soviet bloc countries". Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2013 (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.