Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil war in Iraq


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Civil war in Iraq

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated for proposed deletion by Magickyleo101, further to comments made on the article's talk page. I oppose the deletion, as I feel that the article is detailed and informative, as well as being within the scope of several WikiProjects. However, lacking the detailed knowledge required to update the article, I felt that it would be uncouth to simply remove the prod tag based on my own personal opinion, hence this discussion. I would personally vote to keep the article, as it seems perfectly informative as it is, and perhaps requires someone with knowledge in this field to update the article with more recent developments – as such, I have already left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq to this effect. (This article was moved whilst this page was being written... apologies if I haven't updated any links.) haz (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and move to Sectarian violence in Iraq. This is where I wanted the page to be moved but that would require an administrator's help. The page needs to be updated and the "Civil war" label must not return.-- S    TX   19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A previous attempt to rename the article resulted in no consensus. An article rename may be possible, but it shouldn't happen as the result of an AfD discussion. After this process concludes, it would be better to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Nosfartu (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. There should certainly be an article on sectarian violence, but the content of the current article is poorly suited for a simple rename.  The Iraq Civil War article lists out commanders, belligerents, army strengths, etc., which forces the discussion of the violence into the mold of a traditional conflict.  Moreover, whole sections of the article wouldn't make much sense after a rename (e.g. "Use of 'Civil War' Label").  Finally, nearly all of the content is from more than six months ago, and a lot has changed since then.  Any update would essentially create a new article, and I don't see any reason not to start from the ground up.  The article is just going to be misleading until it gets some pretty significant rewriting.  Magickyleo101 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, barring deletion, a rename is by far the best option. I make this argument in the article's talk page, but if we keep the article and simply try to update it, we'll enmesh ourselves in original research.  There just aren't enough credible and current outside sources which make claims about whether there's still a civil war (and if not, when it ended).  So we either act as if there's still a civil war (which is promoting our personal views in one way) or we insist that the civil war is over and promote our personal views in another way.  But it's a violation of wikipedia standards either way.   Magickyleo101 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. What is going on in Iraq is one of the big issues of the present time.  Part of it is the sectarian violence.  There should be an article to cover it.  It is of course true that the situation keeps changing.  A sensible approach to this is to record how it keeps changing, without destroying the write up that said how it was.  Given that this issue gets media coverage, there seems no reason for an article on this topic to breach NOR policies.  One thing that bothers me is that the user who has requested that this article be deleted User:Magickyleo101 has only ever contributed to this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be laboring under some confusion. I think everyone here agrees that there should be an article on sectarian violence in Iraq - the point under dispute here is whether (what was) the "Iraq Civil War" article should become that article on sectarian violence.  If you think it should, and if you think that NOR policies won't be a problem, then I'd ask that you give us at least a few recent articles which either talk about an ongoing "civil war" in Iraq  or which tell us when the civil war ended.  After all, it hardly seems too much to ask that you back up your assertions about the sources we'll be able to find with some actual, you know, sources...  Magickyleo101 (talk)
 * And I don't see why my status as a new community member should be grounds dismissing what I'm saying. I've been open about my actions, and I went through the proper channels.  The article I'm trying to change hasn't been updated in almost half a year, and everyone seems to agree that it has some pretty significant problems.  So it's not like my proposal is totally random, or that no one else can see why I think there's a problem.  Trashing my status really comes off as grasping at straws...   Magickyleo101 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article was at AfD in Sept. 2007 as Articles for deletion/Civil war in Iraq (second nomination). That time, it was over a content dispute. I find the argument for this go-round less than compelling. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Six months ago there were up to date sources on the civil war in Iraq. Since then we haven't gotten any new sources yet the situation in Iraq has changed.  So we need new sources to make a NOR consistent update on what's going on.  But no one seems to be willing to track any down.  Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup. The "out-of-date" nature of the article has been disputed for months. Sources have been coming in all directions so WP:OR is not an issue here. Whether or not this sub-conflict is over, its WP:Notability does not expire. Supposed WP:NOEFFORT is not a good reason for deletion. And this article has seen no shortage of effort from all sides. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If recent sources mentioning a civil war are so easy to find, then why don't you give us some? It's been a while since I've seen a news article use the term, and that's what's causing the problem here.  And this isn't an argument from WP:NOEFFORT.  As things stand now, the article is misleading.  We need sources to fix that.  We have none.  Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you asked: Reuters, AP, USA Today, Reuters, AFP. Again, there is no lack of new information. It's the meaning that has been fought over non-stop for months. Again, even if the conflict has passed, its notabily does not expire. Also, WP:Reliable sources not expire either. Look at the edit history since September. Look at the Talk page assertions that the "so-called civil war in Iraq" is over. This isn't about a lack of sources. This article has seen non-stop edit warring about what sources and facts to include. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only two of those sources use the term "civil war" at all, and both of them suggest that there wasn't one (i.e. they only talk about going to the "brink of civil war"). The other articles you link to simply talk about violence in Iraq, which is important, but not necessarily related to the civil war.  What we need are articles which actually talk about whether the war has finished or whether it's ongoing.  Either that, or we need to change the article's references to a civil war to Iraq's almost-civil-war.  Magickyleo101 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Request - The argument I'm making here really only has two parts: (1)  We can't update an article on the civil war in Iraq without new information on the civil war in Iraq.  (e.g.  We need to be able to say whether there's still a civil war; to say which aspects of the fighting now going on in Iraq are elements of a civil war and which elements are simply sectarian violence.)  (2)  We can't get new, NOR consistent information on the civil war in Iraq, because there don't seem to be enough recent news articles which mention, you know, a civil war.  So (3) we can't simply update the article on the civil war in Iraq.


 * Now, these things make it pretty easy for people to reply to my argument. Either a) tell us how we can update the article on the civil war without information on the civil war, or b) give us some outside sources which mention a civil war in Iraq.  But short of that, I don't really see how any update can go forward.  And responses which don't do either of the above just seem non-responsive.  Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For a) you should cite reliable and verifiable sources, while for b) you should consult the article's talk page where a long list of sources establishing the civil war title seems to be provided. --Nosfartu (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and Restore to Iraq Civil War. The article was previously nominated for deletion twice  with two resulting decisions of Keep. A previous attempt to rename the article also resulted in no consensus.
 * The correct way to make the proposed changes to the article is through the edit page link and the talk page, not to propose it for deletion. An article rename should not take place without following the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. All editors would be encouraged to use this process instead. --Nosfartu (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see no reason why consensus has shifted on this issue, despite the article's apparent age. A new editor might want to make some changes in the article, but provides no compelling reason for deletion. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, "Civil war in Iraq" is a notable topic. Renaming/redirect/merge/update etc. do not require Afd. Rich Farmbrough, 14:15 9 February 2008 (GMT).
 * Keep though renaming may be an option since officially it hasn't been declared as a civil war. Mpondopondo (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove The article has some good information regarding sectarian violence. But ethnic composition and naming of groups that commit acts of violence is not in line with the title.  I would rather simply have the title changed, but apparently that has already been attempted.  Misleading the readers with a title that has little to do with the article is dishonest. Angncon (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep* - After some clean up I believe this article should be kept. It is clear, helpful and very modern in its convictions.  chris4682 21:23, 12 February 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.