Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This new article is forked out of a dispute at Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan and is largely a duplicate of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Some discussion preceding the forking can be viewed at Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Redundant, POV Fork. Support Deletion Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep It's not a copy. First of all this list doesn't contain the names of the soldiers killed, second except for the list of names I have removed a lot of the other text from this article, change a lot of it and added some new. Yes there are still some points in the article that are the same as that other one but that is to be expected since both articles cover ALMOST the same thing. But it's not the same thing. That other article has been presented as a list of coalition soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan, but it is not is it? It only lists soldiers killed within the borders of Afghanistan and not those killed in the surrounding countries who also died supporting the war in Afghanistan. There is at least a hundred soldiers killed in surrounding countries in the war in Iraq and not in Iraq but are listed as the victims of that war. Hundreds of US soldiers were killed during the Vietnam war in Cambodia or Laos and not just exclusivly withing Vietnam itself but are listed as victims of that war. All links in the article War in Afghanistan link to that other article so people think that is the true number of soldiers killed, but it is not is it, it's totaly misrepresenting. There NEEDS to be a FULL list of ALL soldiers killed as the result of the War in Afghanistan. I tried to reason this with an anonymous user at the original article but he wouldn't accept even a bit of a compromise. There needs to be a solid list of all coalition fatalities that have resulted from the war in Afghanistan and not just exclusivly within the borders of that country. BobaFett85 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Deletion This is a POV fork by user BobaFett85 as evidenced by his own comments on the discussion page of the original article (Talk:Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan). User BobaFett85 further proceeded to hijack links for the original established article in an attempt to supplant the original article with his own personalized duplicate version:, ,
 * 74.12.221.240 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This a POV fork, and is simply to create an amendment to the numbers of Canadian Casualties. Why doesn't BobaFett85 simply edit the Canadian Casualties article, which is similar to the British one?? While he is at it, create a American_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan as well.. Sorry, but the original article is sound. This is just a copy, to support his own POV. Personally, I believe the original page at Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan should be an overview page anyway.  Jez t e C 13:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * weak Delete As above. let us obey consesus Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)]]


 * Additional comment It is not just to create an amendment to the numbers of Canadian Casualties, what's wrong with you people? This list also makes an amendment to the number of American casualties as well, the real number of American soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan has also been totaly diminished in that article by Users just because they were not killed within the borders of Afghanistan. This list is not just about the Canadian, about 30 US soldiers are also not listed on that other article just because editors don't want to list them because they were not killed in Afghanistan itself, but officialy they did died in support of the war. Also, I didn't hijack any links, it sounds like I commited a crime. I only linked the main article of the War in Afghanistan and the template of the War in Afghanistan to this article because readers of Wikipedia need to see the REAL number of soldiers killed in the war. That other article is totaly missleading and if anything that other article should be deleated not this one. I changed this article enough so they are not that much the same and was going to change it a lot more in the comming days. This one deals with all Coalition casualties in the war and that other only within the country. The number here is around 30 bigger than in that other article. I'm not trying to push my POV, I just want to show the reader the real number of soldiers killed, again that other article is missleading. A copy? It certainly is not, at the very least there are maybe just a dozen or so sentances that ARE copies from that previous article, but the rest is written totaly by me.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - POV fork, also possibly being used to make a WP:POINT... Also taken from the above quoted talk page "I have a compromise proposition. I myself will delete that additional article I created right here and right now if we added a subsection in the old article where we would specificly mention that beside those killed" - appears to be using this article for blackmail. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a trap! This is essentially an editorial dispute and it doesn't belong here.  If we say "delete" then we're endorsing one view, and if we say "merge" we're endorsing another.  But AfD isn't WP:WQA or WP:AN/I.   Speedy close without resolution here (i.e. as "no consensus").— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a trap! I agree, this is essentially an editorial dispute about the proper number of coalition casualties--it sounds from a quick read of the involved articles that it could be solved with some proper labeling of the various types of casualties. Publicus 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The fact that the creation of the article was a WP:POINT should not stop us from deleting an obviously inappropriate POV fork. The fact that one side or the other would use the outcome of this AFD discussion to "prove" their point also should have no influence on the decision. I suggest deletion of the article (if consensus is to delete, which it seems it will be) and the closing admin specifically commenting that the AFD only means the article should be deleted, it has no opinion on the content dispute one way or another, and that an RFC needs to be opened before either side can claim consensus. The   Seeker 4   Talk  19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this view. We should be voting on the merits of the article itself rather than worrying about endorsing a POV. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with this view as well. (Disclosure: I guess I'm one of the parties of the editorial dispute, unfortunately ...) Deleting the POV fork article does not endorse any side of the editorial dispute. On the other hand, not deleting this clear-cut POV fork article does endorse and encourage POV forking and disruption (WP:POINT). 70.24.198.48 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a closer approximation to an appropriate Wikipedia  article than the other one. The list of individual casulties is excessive detail there. That should have been the one nominated for deletion.DGG (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that this page was created as a POV fork, not because of the quality of the other page (other then not representing the creator of this pages POV about which deaths should be included). The other page is far too long and does contain toomuch detail, but that does not remove the fact this page is POV forking.17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unneeded duplicate article. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Redundant. Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2009 (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.