Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Military. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

Contents

[edit] Military and combat

[edit] Hill 55

Hill 55 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This hill lacks notability since it has not been (and it does not appear likely that it will) be covered in 3rd party sources. The only reason this hill might even close to notable is because Carlos Hathcock once operated from there according to the article on him. However, this does not appear to make the location itself notable or likely to be covered by reliable sources. --Hydraton31 (talk) {Contributions} 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete I agree with hydraton31 above.Also the article is extremely short and would be a canidate for csd-A1.Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Buckshot06(prof) 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Non-notable in this form considering the lack of any information to support the short stub. The stub itself is vague and presents nothing except for geographical location. If more information was provided in support of the battle and its participants it could be elaborated on. As it stands, my DELETE recommendation is actually longer than the article. - Trippz (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This stub provides zero verifiable information on the precise location of Hill 55. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It appears it was a significant base of operations during the Vietnam War. [1] [2] --Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy

AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia and Saddam WMD allegations
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Sarindar


Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete A poorly named, thinly sourced conspiracy theory in which the same two original sources are stretched beyond breaking point. The page is strung-out with peculiar subheadings, carrying statements from people with no direct knowledge of the alleged plot, but whom speculate on it, and/or flatly dismiss it. What is more, this article is well within the scope of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. Indeed, exactly the same charges are described there, and the latter page is better formatted, well written and immaculately sourced. The same cannot be said of Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy. Nor has there been a concerted effort to correct the many problems with said page, despite expressed concerns on the talk page, and today, with the other page a better example of the same controversy, there seems to be no point. In addition, this page is orphaned [3] whereas the other one is not. [4] ~ smb 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Further, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. [5]) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News [6]); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. This, "Operation Sarindar", is the basis for the whole page. ~ smb 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to back this observation up, I've just checked Factiva, a subscription news service operated by Dow Jones which contains most news media of the last 10-15 years, and there are no mentions there either. Orderinchaos 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a well publicized theory, it doesn't have to be true as long as it has been extensively covered by reliable sources, and it has. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That is not a considered answer. Editors are not required to judge whether the conspiracy is true or not. Please read and consider the points raised above in favour of deleting said page. ~ smb 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I have not done any such thing; it is true it does not matter if its true or not, that is exactly my point; as long as it has reliable sources discussing it, and it does, it should have an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • And my point is that it already has an article. The rest is incoherent. ~ smb 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War giving undue weight to one particular theory. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a very unusual argument for an AfD. WP:UNDUE problems can only exist within one article. If one thinks this article does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" (the definition of UNDUE), this should be fixed by adding missing views.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Proxy User (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Please explain your reasoning. As this is not a vote, if you don't provide a reason for your opinion, it will probably be discounted. Corvus cornixtalk 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge with "WDM teories...", per wp:undue victor falk 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is simply a sub-article of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War; not a content fork. Texts in the articles are different if to compare. This is third AfD nomination. Nothing changed since two previous AfD discussions. The article is well sourced. Nomination for deletion is not the way to discuss mergers.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not proposing merger, but deletion, because everything of value is already described on the other page. This one is superfluous to requirements, serving no useful purpose. ~ smb 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Conspiracy theory with no reliable sources.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete it sucks --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it's notable - PietervHuis (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And that is why Wikipedia has a page that covers this topic. However, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. [7]) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News [8]); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. Not that you really care. ~ smb 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete notable... anti-Russian propaganda --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Then is should be marked as notable "anti-Russian propaganda" and kept.Biophys (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
but wiki is not a soapbox for propaganda --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but WP has many articles about propaganda. However, none of the sources identifies the subject of this article as "propaganda". Hence it is not, and your comment is unfounded.Biophys (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Operation Sarindar" is not notable. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the only person who says "Sarindar" existed. ~ smb 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Present version of this article is not entirely about "Operation Sarindar". You said above the subject is notable. Please be consistent.Biophys (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Accusations that Saddam transferred WMD out of Iraq (with or without Russian help) are notable, but Pacepa's individual claim (re "Operation Sarindar") is not notable, and should not have special emphasis. The page is unwarranted. ~ smb 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SYN. --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable, if not necessarily accurate, theory that has been published in relatively reliable sources (Financial Times, Washington Times, Washington Post). Biruitorul Talk 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither the Financial Times nor the Washington Post has ever published a word about "Operation Sarindar". Everything else is accurately sourced on this page. Please correct me if I am mistaken. ~ smb 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, they have published a lot about this controversy. You are mistaken. This article is not about "Operation Sarindar" but about "Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy" - see the title.Biophys (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You are in error (once again). Let me be clear, so there can be no possible misunderstanding. As noted above, allegations that Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq are notable, but Pacepa's uncorroborated claim ("Operation Sarindar") is not notable, and should not be given special emphasis on any page. [9][10] And yet, the first heading on Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy is given over to describing the operating procedure for "Operation Sarindar", something neither the Financial Times nor the Washington Post nor any other reliable source has ever published a word about. In light of this fact, coupled with WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, you must concede that this page is redundant. But don't let small things like facts or Wikipedia policy stand in the way of your POV pushing, will you. ~ smb 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've looked. It's not in either the Washington Post or Financial Review, but in the Washington Times, a right-wing newspaper owned by people with links to Reverend Sun Myung Moon, on 21 August 2003 and 6 February 2004. The first is written by Ion Pacepa, identified as "the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc" and is full of random speculation and assertions. e.g. "Mr Putin likes to take shots at America... Mr Putin's tactics have worked." etc. The second is barely a mention at the end of a generally unrelated article, internally refuted by weapons inspector David Kay in a single line referring only to "that report". Another article is published in three different Wall Street Journal editions (US, Europe, Asia) on 30 September 2003, again relying very heavily on Pacepa. It's noted elsewhere that he is now a paid commentator for National Review, which seems to be another right-wing publication. On 27 March 2008, it got a *very* brief mention, linked to Shaw, in the "Prospect Magazine", buried deep within a 3990 word article. This is all reminding me of some issues we had with Australian blogs and Andrew Bolt and the like. A few self-publishing efforts by someone trying to sell a book that happen to make the media and a couple of lines here and there in other articles do not make anything notable. Orderinchaos 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW here's the evidence regarding it not being in the Washington Post. I have verified that Factiva's collection goes to the 1980s. Orderinchaos 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to record here that I'm generally surprised at Biophys's effort to censor my contribution of actual evidence to counter the points raised above. I've had a good opinion of him from previous situations, although we disagree on the facts in this case. Orderinchaos 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Biophys and past consensus. Ostap 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no serious evidence exists for any of the contentions made, and not a particularly notable theory - it's strung together here with WP:SYN, and I also agree with with smb's nom, and and Dhartung's WP:UNDUE concerns above. Addressing it purely on a factual basis, several reports from a number of government investigative agencies (including in the US) have suggested the weapons either did not exist/were not developed, which instantly voids the question of who hid them. Orderinchaos 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as this page is entirely devoted to a non-notable bullshit conspiracy theory. Now, some bullshit conspiracy theories are notable, became a subject of serious research and were covered by scholarly sources, for example The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The subject of this article, however, has not. It is entirely based on rumors and unsubstantiated allegations which does not make the subject notable enough for a separate page per se just because such allegations were published here and there. The latter may warrant a referenced statement in wider topic articles but this being spun off into a separate page creates the classic POV fork. Unfortunately, such and similar AfD's get often bombed, snowballed and voted along the traditional ethnic and "party" lines. So, I don't have much faith in the process. But if anyone is interested, here is my opinion. --Irpen 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You are exactly right Irpen, this AFD is getting bombed, snowballed and voted along the traditional ethnic and "party" lines. What a shame. Ostap 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Orderinchaos and Irpen. A classic case of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE and a few other acronyms that come to mind, but I am too polite to write. Is glad that she will not be penalised for wanting to delete this...ummm...article. Risker (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable conspiracy stuff has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per all above. Artifically created "controversy" through original synthesis. Not-notable, POV fork and thinly-sourced conspiracy theory that deserves no more than the brief mention (less, in fact) that it already has in the WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War article.--Berkunt (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Crack-pot conspiracy theory that simply cannot be taken seriously even for a conspiracy theory. Perfect example of how NOT to write an article per WP:SYN. Krawndawg (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely Delete. I see only vague speculations. Someone believes, someone clames, someone thinks, etc. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple answer What a respected person like Albert Einstein thought about his collegues, football, whatever, seems to be uninteresting for the Encyclopedia. Normal article should present at least one fact. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple reply. But it would be interesting to learn what Albert Einstein thought about theory of relativity. All these experts (Shaw, Di Rita, Bodansky, Pacepa, and so on) made comments within their area of expertise. We do not cite what they think about theory of relativity or football.Biophys (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
To summarize, we have a lot of Russian users who want this page to be deleted because it describes a controversy about Russia. On the other hand, this story was also an embarrassment for the Bush administration. So, some US users do not like it too. But the articles should not be deleted based on the majority of votes.Biophys (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"But the articles should not be deleted based on the majority of votes.". Articles are deleted based on a majority of votes, not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page - Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus --Berkunt (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)--Berkunt (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The notorious anti-Russia propaganda pusher wants to keep his anti-Russian propaganda and accuses us all of being crybaby nationalists (instead of actually making a real argument against our on-topic comments) then suggests that we shouldn't follow consensus. Seriously?Krawndawg (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see The Plague. I like this essay.Biophys (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Krawndawg, please review WP:CIV. Biophys is a Russian, albeit one who is (quite rightly) disenchanted with that country's current regime and its dismal human rights record. It's not about propaganda, but about exposing, through reliable sources, the criminal conduct of the Kremlin. Biruitorul Talk 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If this were about "exposing" criminal conduct, the article would be properly sourced and wouldn't be a giant collection of original synthesis. But it's not and it is, that's what makes it propaganda. As for Biophys ethnicity, what on earth makes you think I care about that? Are you implying that one can't be against the country they were unwillingly born in? Lets keep irrelevant personal details out of this please. Krawndawg (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. All we have is a puff piece written in a right-wing American newspaper by a defector, who now works for another right-wing American newspaper, which makes sweeping assertions. (I would have the same ground of opposition if it were opinion matter in Pravda or the Australian Communist Party's newspaper - which strangely does appear in journal repositories). It's not even remotely in the territory of reliable source, and false claims that it has appeared in reliable sources have been debunked. The whole thing is somewhat reminiscent for me of this controversy. Orderinchaos 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poorly sourced and thinly evidenced conspiracy theorists quoted out of context to build a synthesis argument, and all this seems to be done to forward a particular political POV that is completely at odds with what the consensus of journalists, government investigators, intelligence agencies, and academics has concluded after extensive investigation. csloat (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I want to add that I don't think improving the page will help at all here. There is no encyclopedically notable "Russian and WMD in Iraq controversy." There is no mainstream news coverage of any such "controversy." A google search for the title of this article results in ten total hits; nine look like links back to wikipedia and the tenth is something called "Techniques To Make Women Orgasm - H0gr2zcs | Google Groups." I know of no academic article or newspaper article that refers specifically to this phrase at all. csloat (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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. The strongest argument - that the substantive content of this article is duplicated at Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict - has not been disproven. 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict (2nd nomination)
Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am renominating this list for deletion because in my view the list is a POV fork that is inherently incapable of ever achieving a NPOV. (The list is essentially a collection of newspaper reports about alleged PKK attacks on civilians, despite the title, and as a list is not capable of ever being anything more than that.) There are a number of reasons for this, but most specifically this is because with 37,000+ deaths attributed to the Turkish-PKK conflict to date any list of individual incidents causing casualties will inevitably be either highly selective, or alternatively, far too huge for an encyclopaedic list. There is therefore no chance whatsoever that this list will ever be able to avoid claims of an over-emphasis on one side or the other.

At the previous deletion debate comparisons were made between lists on the IRA and ETA, however such comparisons are flawed because the Turkish-PKK conflict is occurring on a significantly larger scale with significantly higher casualty figures, and involving regular, sometimes indiscriminate military-scale activity by both sides. The IRA and ETA conflicts are also significantly better documented by independent commentators.

A fundamental lack of reliable sources on which to base content means that it is also practically impossible for this list to achieve a reasonably encyclopaedic standard of quality at any point in the foreseeable future. For a start, the vast bulk of likely source material is the Turkish language press. The Turkish press, however, cannot be considered reliable when it comes to reporting on the conflict because of a clear conflict of clear conflict of interest, not to mention significant legal restrictions on what they can and can’t report. Consequently, and inevitably, Kurdish casualties of the conflict will be under-reported and Turkish casualties over-reported. (See further discussion on the list's talk page.) Almost all the sources in the list simply report at face value Turkish military announcements, while independent verification of these claims is virtually impossible. In addition, strict restrictions on Kurdish language reporting almost guarantee that we’ll only ever get one side of the conflict. Further discussion of these issues can be found on the list's talk page. Note also, that the list has been tagged for POV since March (in addition to other tags removed and reinstated over the past two years) and it hasn’t been touched except by an IP and the SpellingBot.

The previous deletion debate for this list revolved primarily around POV concerns, and at the conclusion at the time was to rename the list, from "Civilian casualties caused by PKK" to "Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict". In the two years since that nomination the list remains almost entirely the POV fork it was at the time of its original afd nomination.

I considered the list as a merger candidate, but all substantive information from this list is already covered more than adequately in the main article Turkish-PKK conflict, not to mention a significantly better account of the same information in Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict.

nb. This argument should not be taken to mean that all information on the conflict is problematic, only the specific category of material that this particular list is intended to compile. The only possible way to document casualties without POV issues is to report raw numbers from independent third parties, such as Amnesty International, in article format rather than the arbitrary specifics of this list. Debate (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately I've stuffed up the listing so it doesn't link directly to the main article, Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict. If anyone with a bit more experience than me is able to fix the link I'd appreciate it. Debate (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to repair it. Is it working now? -- saberwyn 11:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate, you're a genius. :) Debate (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge anything of value and redirect so as to preserve the page history. This is an unnecessarily detailed, largely unsourced, and hard-to-maintain page that appears to be a POV fork (e.g. the unsourced comment "PKK has targeted primary school teachers..."). But there is a great deal of info. here that is in principle sourceable and I'd prefer not to see that deleted. If delete is the result, please copy the page contents to Talk:Turkey-PKK conflict for reference. JJL (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and sourced subject. We can not keep everything in a more general article Turkish-PKK conflict. This is not content fork. Such sub-articles simply make main article more readable.Biophys (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Comment Clearly the subject is notable. The primary question here is whether it is possible for the article to ever become compliant with WP:NPOV#Undue weight since it certainly is not compliant now. I would strongly suggest it cannot ever achieve an NPOV for two main reasons: 1) if complete, the list could potentially be more than 37,000 entries long which is plainly impractical, and 2) there is insufficient reliable coverage of the Kurdish side of the conflict. If the article is incapable of ever complying with Wikipedia policy then it should be deleted. There is also a secondary but related question concerning the nature of the references, which are necessarily both unreliable and arbitrary. This would not normally be an afd issue except in this case it goes to the question of whether it is possible for them to ever be anything else. Note also that the substantive material in the list is already adequately summarized in both Turkey-PKK conflict and, particularly, Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict. No doubt some of this could have been clearer in the original nomination. Debate (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone comes up during this AfD with rules of inclusion that achieve a consensus. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator admits the subject is "clearly notable", the issue here for him/her is one of POV. The article appears well sourced. While this Marxist-Leninist group is a designated terrorist organisation, the term "terrorist" is rather emotive, and thus some may express POV concerns. This can easily be solved by replacing "PKK terrorist" with "PKK militant" in the body of the article. Martintg (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment With respect, this doesn't address any of the inherent problems with the list, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue weight and unreliable sources, as above. Debate (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Split Essential encyclopedic material, and "clearly notable". Good faith but misplaced nomination, I hope it will result in improvements in the article. I am planning to undertake such an 'improvement drive' 'soon'. I even signed in to do that. I hope the closing (non)admin can wait for about two days. The article is certainly not POV fork. The POV tag is valid only b/c of "terrorist", and it's one man's doing, and it can be undone by one man, me you or the nominator (it even has grammatical and spelling mistakes). I suggest the nominator to read the Wikipedia policies, especially the Undue weight one, that the nom tries to put forward as 'the' argument. The Turkish mainstream media is reliable and Wikipedia-reliable, and unlike suggested, about 20% of source attributions are to Turkish sources, media or not. With those external links (we should format them), there are more than 90, about 70 of them being third parties, 5 of them 'PKK'ish (HPG). PKK is a terrorist organization and it is accepted as such by most of the 'relevant' countries. Even Roj TV will deny being a mouthpiece of PKK, as in our world, it is illegal to be terrorists' media. So, we may not have a "Wikipedia-reliable" PKK source. So we may not have an Undue weight issue. Wikipedia reflects what is out there. We apply WP:IAR and through WP:Consensus, we accept HPGOnline on relevant articles (HPG is PKK's military wing led by the Syrian Bahoz Erdal, who will soon gain complete control of PKK). Let's not associate the whole 1.3 billion Muslims with a couple ten thousands al Quaeda terrorists, or do similar things.
  • There seems to be some misconception. Unlike the nom seems to think, there are as a number really few (even one is too many) attacks by Turkish security forces (even if we include paramilitary and village guards, which occasionally side with PKK) resulting in civilian deaths. We cannot make up attacks. If the nom has read my earlier posts (as an anon), s/he will remember my discussion about foreign media in PKK camps (Debate, I think you owe me an apology for your latest comments). What the article is lacking is the fatalities from many clashes between Turkish security forces and PKK. The article was fairly complete in the past with a template that was but deleted for aesthetic reasons.
  • My suggestion is to split this into two; civilian and noncivilian fatality attacks. Move the civilian ones to Turkey-PKK conflict/Attacks with civilian fatalities (it can be renamed), and for now, keep the non-civilian ones on the talk page, as suggested above, and later make it also a real subarticle. We should keep the ones that happened in the last few months on the main page, Turkey-PKK conflict, and only them, and 'archive' old ones to the subarticles. When PKK wishes to attack civilians, it is now done under TAK's name. Currently on Wikipedia, we separate TAK from PKK. So they should not be listed there. Most civilian deaths by 'Turkish security forces' seem to have been caused by the village guards, and deep state. They can be moved to those articles, but I think they should stay. We have several wikiprojects that can improve this article, WPTR,WPKurds, and possibly also WPTerrorism. If you wish to, you are certainly welcome to join them. We can discuss more on the talkpages of the projects (I'm a member of the first two). I still do not want to 'come back' to Wikipedia. I guess I can stay for a few days, and then leave again. The article will stay on my google reader for a while. DenizTC 12:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Deniz mostly goes over content arguments largely unrelated to AFD. Patronizing tone aside, Deniz makes a number of assertions as if they are incontrovertible facts when they are clearly are not, the most significant of which is that his sources are reliable when this is not a position supported by Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United States Department of State (For references see the article's talk page). Best of intentions aside, the fact remains that neither Deniz nor anyone else is ever going to adequately account for 37,000+ deaths in this 'list' of random incidents no matter how many ways one splits it. Debate (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: This article documents some incidents during the war contradicting the title "casualties" i.e. statistics of death including chart, diagram etc. This is a list of some news events, not encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment to closing admin. Maybe this can be relisted for further comment? I suspect that the more complex argument here doesn't invite the standard "delete NN/keep N" voting-style response common to the more obvious afds, so contributions have been a been a bit light-on despite Deniz and my lengthy contributions. It would be good, however, to get some feedback on the actual grounds of the nomination. :) Debate (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Relata refero. "[With] 37,000+ deaths attributed to the Turkish-PKK conflict to date any list of individual incidents causing casualties will inevitably be either highly selective, or alternatively, far too huge for an encyclopaedic list". --Folantin (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Debate 木 11:00, 2 June 2008 (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.
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 no consensus. I personally find the WP:NOTNEWS argument persuasive, but apparently it was not persuasive enough to sway consensus. I would also like to draw attention to the suggestion to merge brought up by Ohconfucius, as it may be more relevant in the context of the broader topic of Protests against the Iraq War rather than it's own article, and that compromise is likely to prevent the need for future nominations on this subject. Shereth 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't really rise to a notable level. Only brief and local coverage (or first-party), and, as the article admits, a "small" action. No impact on policy, of course. Some anti-war marches are notable - the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest, for example. This one was on a far smaller scale and its article should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, this one reads like a news article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; news articles belong on Wikinews. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not a good reason for deletion in and of itself. Reading like a news article is something that can be fixed by editing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. These events did receive significant news coverage, but this article needs a LOT of work to bring it up to standard. If it sounds like news, that means we just need to go through a few more rewrites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And as a follow-on, the article is also currently incomplete. There were many different demonstrations that day, and this one only covers one of them. There's a photo of Funk the War 3, but no text about it. Additionally, there were other marches later on in the day that have received no coverage at this point in the article. The article has been tagged for expansion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I still say delete because this is an event that will probably be soon forgoten anyway, but if you want to say keep because there was a lot of coverage, and you think the topic is notable, then I would have to say it'd be better to just merge it with March 19, 2007, March, and/or create an article titled 2007 Anti-war Protests and merge this and all related articles to the new 2007 Anti-war Protests article. Sound reasonable? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, for one thing, you got the year wrong, and no, that's not a particularly good solution. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Debate (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not impressed by the current state of the article, but it seems to me that it could be improved so that it would be worth keeping. The March 19, 2008 protests were a break from demonstrations on past anniversaries of the invasion of Iraq in that civil disobedience replaced the mass march completely as a strategy. If the article included some of the context, the debates in the antiwar movement leading up to the demonstrations, IVAW's call not to distract from Winter Soldier, Cindy Sheehan's unsuccessful attempt to put together a unified march, etc., I think it would go beyond a news piece and be worthy of an encyclopedia. Kalkin (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keepSTRONG DELETE i'm also not impressed by the current state if the article however, as we try to host the sum of all human knowledge, i say we need to take a look at history and these protests will be researched in the future. a cleanup tag will do for now. This article has serious OWN issues and some contributors are clearly trying to make a WP:POINT and get on a WP:SOAPBOX there are way too many WP:HOPELESS arguements that are entirely baseless (baseless in wikipedia policies not the editors' personal or group rationales) Transwiki to wikinews.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Myheartinchile (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment, don't be ridiculous. it's completely appropriate. and it's not speculation. history is looked back upon. that is a fact. all wars and protest movements have been looked back upon. end of story. your comments are the ones that are inappropriate.Myheartinchile (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does having an article about the event in The Guardian count as notible enough? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The protests in D.C. and other cities absolutely merit an encyclopedic article. The main protest took place on a weekday (3/19 was a Wednesday) and the traffic disruptions, demonstrations, and police arrests drew enourmous attention of people who work in D.C. including House and Senate members. The Iraq war and the protests are VERY significant. Since the protest many Congress members now appear reluctant to be seen supporting the war. On May 15, 132 House Republicans even voted "present" rather than "yes" for supporting war funding. This is unprecedented since the war started 5 years ago Astuteoak (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)— Astuteoak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • comment, you don't seem to understand that whatever effect this event had on the people of DC is as you stated it wholly irrelevant. wikipedia articles includability is measured by WP:N and protests fall under WP:EVENT, you should also see WP:NOTNEWS, if your article does get deleted it will definitely have a place at wikinews. arrests don't make for notability, also there is no states verifiable correlation between your protest and the allegations you make about the u.s. congress' voting patterns. wikipedia does not pubish the truth. it publishes the verifiable facts available.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • reply Your opinions are well stated, nevertheless the protests in D.C. and other cities are profoundly notable. It is very uncommon for the U.S. to be in a war which last 5 years, and a 5-year anniversary war protest is historically significant. I agree congress' voting patterns is speculation and that's why its not in the article. Only history will decide if the protests had a political influence. I have two children and as they grow up they should be able to go to Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia and be able to read about the Iraq war, related politics, and the war protests. Relegating this to "news clips" would be a disservice to future generations. Any encyclopedia which neglects to mention these events would be woefully deficient.Astuteoak (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Momentary headlines do not make for Encyclopedic notability. Just another anti war protest. It is not notable, and putative usefulness of the information is not sufficient to have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anti War Movement Archive/Annals/News. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, one-time news event. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would appreciate one or more of the editors who believes that this is a "one-time news event" commenting on my suggestion that the article include background not mentioned by news articles. Kalkin (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Stretching the article to include background duplicates the existing article, protests against the Iraq War. Any contextual information would be much more appropriately covered in that article instead of broadening the scope of this one well beyond its natural limits. Debate (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Did you see my comment above? I am not proposing that we include general antiwar-protest background information, but background information to this specific protest. I believe that for a number of reasons - because of the role it played in the antiwar movement, because of new features, because of its position on the fifth anniversary of the war - this protest is more notable than your average antiwar protest of equivalent size. Kalkin (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The subject lacks stand alone notability. Perhaps content from this would be better suited as a brief mention in protests against the Iraq War. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NOT#NEWS. MrPrada (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has enough significant coverage to firmly establish notability. The coverage goes well beyond "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", the types of news singled out in WP:NOT as inappropriate. Even if much less significant than other protests, this and other medium-scale protests are of lasting interest and merit encyclopedia coverage.--ragesoss (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Protests/demonstrations of this scale take place regularly around the world which aren't notable. The article also reads like a news article. To address Kalkin's concerns just because the protest happened on the 5th anniversary does not in itself affect the notability. Benon (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Merge I believe that this should be merged back to Protests against the Iraq War. There appears to be a complete lack of perspective when a subject is allowed to develop on its own, like this one has. The event seems not substantially different to any of the protests which have gone before; its scale is also not great; currently, there is a lot of superfluous detail which would only appear in news articles but is not otherwise encyclopaedia-worthy. Having the content back inside rthe 'Protests' article will serve to refocus it, and allow for judicious pruning. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete NOT#NEWS Sceptre (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • MOTION TO CLOSE DISCUSSION and Delete per obvious consensus, furthermore nearly all Keep votes are based on conjecture, and emotion and fall in many WP:HOPELESS fallacies.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete its the same bull from the same group of people. It fails notability, its here to make a point, it lacks any backbone for growth, and thus it is the weakest link. Therefore, we should delete it and be done with ASAP. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "bull from the same group of people"? Who's that? "here to make a point"? How so, and how do you know? How about assuming good faith? Kalkin (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Seriously, Assume good faith, and look at these things objectively, no matter what your opinion is on the article's subject matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am assuming good faith. I am also assuming that you are aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We do not need 3200 pages on every pro-peace and pro-war rally in (or out) of the country, especially when each camp presents what is essentially the same bull at each rally. One or two articles can more than adequately cover the entire movement for peace and for war. All I see here is an attempt to justify having a minor pro-peace rally article when other articles already on here are better built to handle this sort of material. Now, if this rally had presented some new and interesting angle that no one had heard before I might reconsider, but no new angles are presented. So I say delete. Now I will meet you half way and say that if we do delete the article we salvage whatever usable material we can and shove it in to one of the better built anti-war articles here, but my descion to vote delete stands. I do not ask that you like it, but I do ask that you respect it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot reasonably assume you're acting in good faith as long as you continue to refer to the article's topic as "bull", and I'm sure Kalkin will agree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I have stated my position on the matter based on my interpretation of the above policy(s), and you have disagreed with my interpretation, as you are free to do. I doubt either of us are hot change our opinions on the matter, and I have things to do elsewhere on the encyclopedia. I will not be returning here again to reply, so let it be. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A comment to TomStar81: Why do you say that the article is the "same bull"? I checked all the references in the article and they are legitimate. There has been more than two notable war protests so I think its OK to have more than two Wikipedia articles. I suggest to keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.22.120 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • — 4.88.22.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul Talk 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I will not presume to speak for Tom, but judging by his comment that "I will not be returning here again to reply," I don't think he will come back here unless you point out that he has a question pending here. You may be better off bringing this up on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.105.199 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A SUGGESTION for those so passionate for documenting all the minor protests (or whatever adjective you would prefer "fantastic" "awesome" "major" "noteworthy" "radical" "important") you would have a much easier time and a lot more support if you began a wiki based on that objective at wikia where anyone can create a wiki if they want to around any purpose. how bout that? And if you want an already existing project, try wikinews, this article is not a history topic it is news topic, so at wikinews you can cover that and every other protest you want! But at wikipedia this particular event, can only fill no more than perhaps a sentence at say Protests of the Iraq War the year 2008 or things that have occurred on March 19. You can even copy and paste this article buddy!Myheartinchile (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC) and a compromise? perhaps someone could write, war on terror protests in: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. I think that if you break it down by year you could have a lot more useful historical content, not have an overburdened article for all the protesting (that one one could be clipped down or split into protests in favor and against) and each year article could be broken down by month. I think that would satisfy notability and could be an excellent compromise.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • These protests have been proven notable through multiple reliable sources, and so, no - your compromise is a poor one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:07, 8 June 2008 (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.

[edit] Military Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time


[edit] Military-related Miscellany for deletion

The following military-related MfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

[edit] Military-related Templates for Deletion

The following military-related TfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

[edit] Military-related Categories for Discussion

The following military-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

[edit] Military-related Deletion Review

The following military-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion: