Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts


 * 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. Secret account 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. duplicates existing articles 2. non-consensus use of "Islamic State" 3. Article concept previously rejected in a RfC 4. Title is awful - no one calls the conflict this/ See this RfC and the move moriturum at ISIL Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 28.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 11:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is utterly depressing! Yes delete!  This just looks like a bit of manipulative propaganda and I have difficulty in assuming good faith here.  The Syrian conflict is a religious conflict in which, for the most part, involves the intolerable persecution and killing of one religious/ethnic group by another religious/ethnic group.  There are already articles related to coalition, international interventions in Iraq and Syria which have been unnecessarily entitled American-led.  Now there is this.  The author clearly has no regard for consensus as related to the naming of the subject as clearly indicated at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  Something should be done about the creator/s of this article.  This is a topic that I had only just raised at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  Please consider views expressed.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, boy. The title is absolutely horrendous, and I'd like to see anyone other than the article creator defend it. Content in the article reads very much like a soapbox piece, or at the very least, is utterly unencyclopedic; "Islamic State is possibly at discord with the United States and their allies since the 2003 Iraq War, when I.S. (named as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn) fought a U.S. coalition (see also section 4, Message of I.S. to the American people); the United States possibly have a spite against Al-Qaeda type organisations like I.S. whom they’ve fought against in 2001 Afghanistan, in 2003 in Iraq, and in 2011 in Pakistan." - are you being serious? Everything in the article is a duplication of other articles, and whilst that isn't necessarily a bad thing on its own, when you combine it with everything else, it's another nail in the coffin. About the only thing this article has going for it is the large amount of reliable sources in there; but that doesn't redeem what is, to be blunt, a clusterfuck. The author didn't bother to put it in any categories, either, and they created it 15 days ago. And if there's an RfC that decided against this, then there really is no course but to Delete and TNT it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I put in the RfC comment because I distinctly remember an RFC proposing an article that covered the US-led intervention in Iraq and Syria together (each has its own article for good reason now) but I think it's been archived recently and I can't recall which of the various related articles it was in. We already have an overarching (and somewhat useless-maybe worth deleting) 2014 military intervention against ISIL. If anyone cares I'll spend more time looking for the RfC but this attempt fails on its own merits, regardless of any previous RfC.
 * I just deleted new paragraphs linking to this page like "In 2014, the United Kingdom got directly involved in a new escalation of violent exchanges between war opponents of 2003: U.S. and allies versus Islamic State." inserted in History of the United Kingdom, History of Belgium and History of the Netherlands (1900–present) Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Duplicates existing articles Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. This is nothing more than a wall of text surrounding a content fork. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2014 (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.