Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL


 * 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. It doesn't seem that the rewrite is so substantial as to invalidate previous opinions.  Sandstein  21:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am nominating this article for deletion as it appears to be a content fork. All the information is suitably covered in the appropriate articles. No need for this one to be around. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination. The content of this article is WP:SYNTH as it attributes pretty much all deaths in recent fighting to "the Military intervention against ISIL", including civilians killed by the loathsome group. This topic is much better off being covered in the relevant articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:POVFORK and [[WP:SYNTH. User:Mr rnddude, and User:Nick-D explain problem very well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine ether way I created this article because in the main article, Military intervention against ISIL, in the infobox, editors have been adding every single person (civilian or military) killed by ISIL throughout the world to the infobox making it unnecessarily over-inflated. And yes, I agree with Nick-D that this was (on their part) WP:SYNTH and OR. Some of the deaths they added to the infobox I think weren't even ISIL-related. The only reason I created this article was to downsize that over-inflated infobox. After moving the information from the infobox to this article, removing ( 17,314 bytes) all individual civilian deaths in the infobox (leaving only military deaths) and leaving only a small summarization of civilian deaths in that infobox, I wouldn't think its a content fork if the same subject is not anymore covered in the other article. However, like I said, I did think myself that the unnecessarily long list of all ISIL-related deaths in the infobox was, as you say, SYNTH, OR and you can add UNDUEWEIGHT to that in my opinion. So, when creating this article, I did expect someone would nominate it for deletion based on this. So, basically, I agree with everything, , and everyone else said. So, I'm fine ether way if the article is deleted or not. But in the future, people shouldn't be allowed to add this much unnecessary individual deaths to the infobox of the main article on the military intervention since its OR, SYNTH and UNDUEWEIGHT and basically most of the deaths that were in the box had nothing to do with the intervention itself. And I'm amazed someone did not do something about it up until now and left it as it was. EkoGraf (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think I see what you mean, I took a look at the page you linked as it used to be and that infobox is ridiculously over inflated. I think that it was entirely unnecessary to go to that detail, perhaps mentioning the 1300 Kurdistan deaths, for example, separately due to the high death toll and then having the rest summarized as a total under worldwide or other. If it is particularly necessary then a section of that article could have been devoted to it, or, if necessary and if anybody finds more pertinent a sub-article or sub-list created. The article in question Military intervention against ISIL is overburdened as it is. I think I now understand the naming you gave to your article and why it was made the way it was. I think the contentious issues that myself and others had was firstly the labeling of terror victims as being victims of military intervention, secondly I personally read it as a tabulation, a sort of 'keeping score', of deaths which I now realize was not what was intended (simply de-cluttering the main article was) and finally that this information would (and should) have been covered in the relevant articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe spread the information out through different articles? For example the table on ISIS attacks to the article on ISIS itself. I don't know, I'm spitballing here. XD EkoGraf (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This article could be entitled Deaths caused by ISIL or Victims of ISIL and it would make a lot more sense. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly okay with this idea, and would recommend linking it to the main article if its done. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with me as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that Rename. Thanks for the suggestion, User:Legacypac.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete or Rename As others have noted, the title is highly misleading an inappropriate, since it implies that this is a list of casualties inflicted by those fighting ISIL, when many of the casualties listed have been caused by ISIL itself. I still remain unconvinced that a separate article is needed, but if it is kept, it should be at least renamed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I have renamed the article per the proposition that seems to have been supported by most. EkoGraf (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, despite rename, this remains a WP:POVFORK and [[WP:SYNTH, as language in lede makes clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at rewriting the lede to kill POV and Synth. Unless somebody else would like to. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do so, thank you! The initial text was there to conform with the structure about the casualties that was already made over at the military intervention article, that we all agree was in-proper and had to be dealt with long ago. In regard to it being a POV fork, like I said, it was already POVed and SYNTHed in the original article. I hope with Mr rnddude's help this can be dealt with. As for the fork thing, I'm not seeing how its a fork if there is no other existing article on this particular subject elsewhere on Wikipedia (I removed most of the original POV/SYNTH compilation of the figures from the original article/infobox). But if you feel there are elements that feel forkish feel free to correct them. EkoGraf (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the SYNTH issue lies with the figures, I think the problem is more specifically confined to the lede, specifically "In retaliation, ISIL, or ISIL-inspired jihadists, conducted more than a dozen attacks in more than half a dozen countries, leaving hundreds of civilian casualties." This synthesizes the fact that many states are in conflict with ISIL with the subsequent attacks on various states. But, worse than that to many people, it, albeit unintentionally, gives the notion that ISIL is in someway justified in doing so (retaliating for crimes committed against them, I don't think too many people would appreciate this sentiment). As for FORK, link back to the main article, thus making this one a sub article and the fork issue should be dealt with. Finally POV, making the lede completely neutral should suffice. I'll look into this and try clean it up, or propose a new lede in here. Depending on what I come up with. Will report tomorrow (my time, possibly today depending where everyone is). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and effort. Looking forward to it. EkoGraf (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Close this AfD as outdated and open a new AfD at Articles for deletion/Deaths caused by ISIL. Because the page has been renamed and rewritten, much of the earlier discussion is outdated. I recommend opening a fresh AfD to discuss the current state of the article. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that while article creator claims to have claimed up lede, the lede still claims that attacks on civilians in Brussels, etc. are In retaliation for interventions against ISIS in Iraq/Syria.  The POV POV perspective, which has been in article since it was created, defines it as a WP:POVFORK.  Far better to keep material in main article where more editors will keep an eye on it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2016 (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.