Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Terrorism: Allies

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 Delete as inappropriate content fork per consensus. Jreferee t/c 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terrorism: Allies

War on Terrorism: Allies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was created by a user trying to justify his revert war on another page. It is pure POV, factually incorrect and unsourced. The only references (that don't even show up) are to other Wikipedia articles that don't even assert what Top Gun is trying to assert in this article. Most of the "allies" in the "War on Terrorism" do not acknowledge the fact and Top Gun is trying to POV-push his way into making it seem that the whole world is supporting the American campaign. In any case Verifiability not truth says it all and this article is not verifiable. Sir Anon (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I withdraw my vote to delete this page, please refer to the Move proposal by Victor falk below--Sir Anon (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP I do not see what's the problem here, all of the things stated in the article are true. I never said the whole world supports the campaign, only those who fight al-Qaeda and it's allies. Also all of the things stated in the article have been checked and sourced, they are linked to other wikipedia articles that support this one, also you should read the War on Terrorism article as well, it is all stated there. You say it is factually incorrect then the whole War on Terrorism up until now for the last 6 years should be factually incorrect. I didn't start any revert war, I have given up trying to explain to you Sir Anon the core of what WoT is about because you obviously can not understand it. I stoped reverting your removal of the list of allies from the WoT infobox. But you yourself wanted a source for the list of WoT Allies so I gave it to you, just did what you wanted. According to you we can not use other SOURCED Wikipedia articles as a source here. Why? Do you think that Wikipedia is totaly factually incorrect. The USA president himself has stated Lebanon is a front in the war on Terror, as well as Somalia, the Phillipines, etc. Don't even try to say Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are not participients in this war. You said the "allies" in the "War on Terrorism" do not acknowledge the fact, well excuse me then what is the "coalition of the willing" or the NATO (ISAF) force. Verifiability you say? Where is the verifiability in what you say? The truth? You should firstly have to know what the truth is about WoT before you make such statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, OR and POV. Punkmorten (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR, POV, non-V. It duplicates information in the War on Terrorism article yet adds in un-cited OR. And, judging by comments made above by TopGun (I presume), the main architect of the article appears not to understand WP:V. AJKGORDON«» 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pure POV, war on terrorism is a POV term. Who decides what a terrorist organization is? The US President? that <BLP attack redacted>, don't make me laugh. RMHED (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:NOR --Strothra (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it then Delete it again just to be sure. Overly subjective, don't just buy the party line ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as content fork.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary and out of context. Countries involved in terrorist related operations should be detailed on that relevant article. A list completely removes context, which is so important in this complex issue. Chwyatt (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - completely unfounded research.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 11:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - because there wasn't previous discussion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is true. But this is really only an extension of discussions on the Talk:War on Terrorism page around the inclusion of a list of combatants. I don't believe that editors would want to have a facsimile of the same argument! We could C&P the relevant bits to the Talk:War on Terrorism: Allies page however... AJKGORDON«» 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
scroll down. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now It's hard to see how a list of blue-links is POV. I'm more concerned with the inclusion criteria since the WOT is only loosely defined, and what would be a RS for this. But since these issues have not been discussed on the talk page, an AfD discussion is premature without some basis for deciding. The first discussion of this should not be occurring here. I'm not opposed to deleting this later if it is supported by talk page discussion. Dhaluza (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a discussion right here, we have a week or so to discuss it here. I don't see why it should be discussed on the talk page instead, especially since this article was created by one editor to justify his revert war (for which he is currently blocked).--Sir Anon (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur. What do say about my vote?--victor falk 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants, having such a one-sided list is rather wp:undue and wp:npov. The GWOT is a complex and much controversial subject, both as a war(s) and as a concept. With War on Terrorism:Combatants, one would know who fights who where and why.--victor falk 19:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this could be a good idea, clearly the countries that are currently listed as allies do not support USA on all their campaigns, yet your proposal would allow this information to be presented in a more unbiased manner. I would support the Move.--Sir Anon (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Even combatant is a debatable concept. Some people say nations involved in ISAF in northern Afghanistan, not heavily engaged against the Taliban/al-Qaeda, are not combatants. If they are not fighting, they are not combatants. Others might say that military forces in a state in conflict are combatants. Again, a list has no context. And imo, a more vague list has even less value. Chwyatt (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants. Seems fair enough. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also changing vote to Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants.(Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as violating WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:POV. Not sure how changing the name changes the violations per WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If this article were to be moved and renamed as suggested above, the suggested title of "War on Terrorism: Combatants" doesn't follow style guidelines. A more appropriate title would be something along the lines of List of countries involved in the War on Terrorism. With that said, is such a list that useful? Most of the information here seems to duplicate what's already listed in either War on Terrorism or the content in more specific articles on individual theaters of operation. I don't entirely agree that this article violates POV - it's just a list, although the intro sentence needs a change - and if the duplicate information drawn out of the above-mentioned articles is the same, WP:V and WP:OR aren't deletion-worthy concerns to me either (so long as those articles are free from error). In any case, I have yet to see (in this AfD) much toward specific examples of POV, OR, RS, and so on. If it's to exist as just a supplemental list, keep it and cut out any loaded statements. If it's trying to fork off as a new article, which I don't see a need for, delete it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - moving the article to a new title does not rectify any of the policy breaches as stated by Bearian. There is no inclusion criteria (the country says they are fighting terrorism? The US says so?, NATO says so?, the UN says so?). There are some curious omissions - I would include the UK for its struggle against terrorism in The Troubles, for example. Moreover, some participants are regarded by their opponents as terrorists and by their allies as freedom fighters. Inclusion in this list/exclusion from it is highly POV. TerriersFan (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (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.