Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War


 * 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. S warm  we ♥ our hive  07:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe this article to be highly inaccurate of the reality on the ground in Syria, having viewed the sources for map changes it seems they are based on word of mouth from unknown Twitter users while changes being broadcast in internationally recognised media outlets are ignored, one example of the inaccurate bias on this page is the reliance on the source of SAHR/SOHR which is a man living in a council flat in London with ties to Jihadist terror networks in Britain, who is currently under investigation by the British police. Sohr reported false claims and continues to do so on false advances and use of chemical weapons on civilians which was actually the "rebels" (Saudi/Qatari/Lybian terrorists). False reports of Government use of chemical weapons, and false reports on "rebels" (Foreign Whabbi Terrorists) advances. I will continue to seek this pages deletion as there is now a more accurate and up to date page with information correct as of June 2015, as we see on this page some information has not been changed since 2011, again total bias mostly in the "Rebels" areas that were lost years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Keep Although better sources than Twitter should be used; unless they are coming from trust worthy groups or individuals.WikiMania76 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Bias is not a reason for deletion. Fix it instead. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

for all reasons mentioned.Alhanuty (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War? What were they before and what will they be after? Pumpkins? Rename Status of cities and towns in the Syrian Civil War, clean up and shrink the ginormous map. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete False information from top of the page to the bottom. Delete the lies. — 86.40.57.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:20, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC).
 * Strong Keep Any incorrect/poorly sourced information should be corrected/deleted, if it can be shown to be such. Most of the article appears to be correct, and deletion would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This article also features the most regularly updated map (in the form of the template) available. Banak (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have no particular love, or even sympathy, for pro-rebel SOHR, but shouldn't this article (and the corresponding template here) just be fixed with better sources instead? A lot of those city history texts are horribly out-of-date too. I would like to point out that I remember at least one other attempt to delete this map (as a template) for other reasons: Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 28. Conversion to an article was an interesting proposal back then, but since we have both the article and the template now, it does not matter anymore. Unless there is some doubt on whether or not we need to keep them as separate pages. I support renaming, as proposed by Clarityfiend. Ceosad (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Jackmcbarn and Ceosad. Cleanup rather than delete. It appears from the wording of this nomination that while SOHR may be biased, the nominator may also be biased. I also think we need to be careful of SPAs in this discussion. Happy to support a rename to a clearer title. Would be interested to hear what the other article mentioned by the nominator is, and whether the two need to be merged in line with WP:POVFORK. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I keep track of this map because it is the most up to date and usually, most unbiased. Any bias is normally removed because of the dedicated following and editors this article has. I know this article has had problems in the past but problems can always be fixed. Alastairjc (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep My perception of SOHR as a source of information is that even though they are pro-rebel/anti-regime/anti-IS, they endeavour to honestly report on the progress of the war. Such a task will invariably suffer from the occasional error, but there is no evidence that SOHR is deliberately misrepresenting the facts on the ground. For this reason, SOHR is viewed by various news media as a reputable and reliable source of information, and is widely quoted in news reports. No one has a monopoly on the news. I suggest that anyone who establishes a reputation for credible reporting should be used as a source of information for this page regardless of what media (twitter, etc) they employ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnabuihe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Comment As I understand it, the nominator is not asking for the map to be deleted, but the list of information about the status of various cities/towns. My main problem with the article as it currently stands is: 1) Including that huge map in it is redundant - a prominent wikilink to Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map at the top would suffice. The inclusion of the big map makes the article take too long to load and choppy to scroll around in (I imagine it's even worse for those with bad internet connections). 2) A lot of info is likely out of date as the nominator says, because the map generally gets more attention. Nevertheless, this is a useful list of more detailed info, with links to relevant maps. Since the big map itself lacks this feature (you can't click on most cities/towns to see more information about their status), this article still has a use, despite parts of it being outdated. Esn (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, my vote is to Keep the article, but replace the big map at the top with a prominent link to it instead. Something like "For a detailed map of the current situation in Syria, see Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map". This would also help with useability. Clicking on a city name when I'm on the map page currently brings me to detailed info about that city on this page (if there is any), but because this page transcludes that map, it takes a very long time to load and is inconvenient. I think making this page quicker to load would encourage greater use of it, and could lead to faster corrections of any errors. Esn (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep-We must strive to find reliable sources, instead of burying our head in the sand.--Catlemur (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. If one feels that territorial changes reported in reliable sources are being ignored, they can make the needed changes. A perceived lack of updates is not a valid reason for deletion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This map is lacking with credible sources and also neutral editors,if you carefully watch the map is olny edited with pro-side sources from pro-side editors to show olny they advancement of they faction they support not the real situation.46.99.115.51 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — 46.99.115.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Issues with actual inaccuracy/unsuitable sources ("biased" does not automatically imply "false" or "unreliable" - the talk page has a better guidance as to which sources can be used) are for the talk page, not AfD. Now having the map be slightly smaller would be desirable but not an AfD concern either. I don't think this is a newspaper-like article, just a regular article that is frequently updated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: its the only source that connect the map with news and its highly accurate, I compare it with the news every day there are some delays but over all its the one of the best sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.247.75.158 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The map and the information contained within this wikipedia page is a complete fabrication with no real sources only "Tweets", it is a dream that people want it to be like, not the reality on the ground. A complete map for Terrorists Jihadist supporters to keep up their moral high, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Your nomination is already an implied Delete !vote, so I've struck this one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus's take on the issues. This is a notable and in scope topic that just happens to get updated a lot. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia not a news site, which might warrant making the map less prominent. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Despite the claims made by some, and the occasional issues with accuracy, the map is for the most part a very accurate representation of front lines and which sides control what. No other maps of the Syrian war are updated this regularly, and no other maps connect the map and the towns with the news in the way this one does. It's a valuable resource that needs to be kept. 86.155.95.11 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is pushing it. Sure, the war and its events are notable--but not all events are. Organizing this by locality is an invitation to be all-inclusive and recentist, and we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Similar maps are used on Wikipedia for other conflicts in Libya, Yemen, and Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.213.117 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * That's not a valid argument. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Without an explanation why it is "invalid", that's not really a counterargument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.213.117 (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Its the best Wikipedia Template map made, and its used widely outside WP. Note why so many Anons want to delete it. Its fair enought to keep it. It can be improved. But we should be more meticously with the sources. Despite SOHR being used as a RS by Western Media it canot be trusted as a 100% reliable source. I agree with User SyrianObserver2015, the guy with the Flat in UK, have some links with Islamic Rebel Groups. Remember the Twitter ISIS account blocks, FB Sohr comments dissapeared in the same fashion at October 2014 and January 2015. A lot of Pro Islamic accounts that comented on SOHR faded away in thoses dates.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of what you say has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. As for "the best template map", I clicked on the article two minutes ago. It just loaded, having crashed Firefox once. It looks awful, being about four times as wide as my screen, and scrolling is well-nigh impossible. The legend is overcomplicated, there are blinking gifs, I can't figure out what's what. There seems to be some sort of floating image in the center of the map; I don't know what it is. How is this map good? And that's not even taking into account the matter of sourcing, which is not up to snuff with WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 July 2015 (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.