Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 (second nomination)


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a memorial to those Coalition soldiers killed in Iraq, 2006. Wikipedia is explicitly not a memorial. It has no encyclopaedic content other than a big long list of names and ranks.

It's also a pretty much word for word copy and paste of the monthly lists presented by CNN ( and so on), plus a copy and paste of the names (here).

The article was nominated for deletion back in January, when the debate was closed as "no consensus", despite the debate being pretty clearly in favour of deletion. It was closed as "no consensus" to allow for transwikification (is that the word?); it's now been 7 months and that still hasn't happened. Delete, definitely fails WP:NOT, possibly WP:COPYVIO. Neil  ╦  10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not a memorial.--Victor falk 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Let's leave this to icasualties.org and the news outlets. I see no problem, however, with a list of casualty figures or even important attacks/battles. --Dhartung | Talk 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq as that is a well referenced encyclopedic article, whereas this one is Original research. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy shit. That is one great big list of external links.  Frankly, that should be deleted, as well.  Recommend against redirection.  Neil   ╦  13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That other article has survived AfD without problems. See the closing admins closing notes here. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Forces aren't killed, soldiers are. Clarityfiend 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Add "bad title" to this article's list of demeanours.  Neil   ╦  13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, not a memorial. Although I'm sure someone will recreate it as soon as we do.. --L--- 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect - OR Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, unencyclopedic list. Per L's comments, someone should watch this lest it be recreated.  Nyttend 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not memorial and is full of nn people with no articles.--JForget 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I changed my mind after I saw we have an article List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq that month by month list is no more enyclopedic than this article is, so may as well keep them both, I don't see a list of reported vietcong killed, even though such lists do indeed exist Bleh999 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --L-- 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant here, because the two articles are mutually related, so much so that they could even be in the same article (causalities of the war in Iraq, also 'othercrapexists' is a guideline not a policy, we can use common sense to decide 'do we have a list on the causalities of one side of the war and not the other? Bleh999 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very relevant, that's the entire point. Just because one thing has an article doesn't mean it should, and it doesn't mean a similar article should --L-- 20:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So if one side of a conflict kills the other we should only have a list of the causalities of one side? That's what you are telling me, and that doesn't seem logical not neutral as is required by wikipedia, and like I said, othercrapexists is not a policy, not sure if you even read it before you quoted it here. Bleh999 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the other article. Please make some kind of case for keeping this one, based in our policies, if you can.  I don't think you will be able to.  Neil   ╦  12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I noted you quoted not a memorial, but I don't see how this article is a memorial as defined on WP:NOT, it doesn't provide any information about the soldiers personal lives, and this isn't a copyvio either as simple data can't be copyrighted, and it was released by the United States government at the source, so it would be Public Domain anyway. Bleh999 22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - a similar article was up for debate yesterday I think. Onnaghar (speak.work) 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that is a valid reason for deletion unless it involved the conflict in Iraq Bleh999 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Just because people are becoming bored with stories about the war in Iraq is no reason to delete this list. Even the media have stopped taking notice.  Forget the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" excuse either, because this database is more than simply a memorial.  This is an ongoing project for an ongoing event that is, for the most part, no longer given much attention in the news.  In one table, it summarizes not only who was killed, but where in Iraq the firefights were on any particular day, how a person died (roadside bomb, friendly fire, combat), whether they were an officer or a non-comm, etc.  Nobody forces you to read this article, just as nobody forces you to go over to Iraq.  Kids, be thankful that you get to sit in your air conditioned bedroom with your computer, "fighting" over a little Wikipedia article.  Mandsford 16:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No valid reasons given for keeping this article. Neil   ╦  12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact this list should be expanded, maybe merged into a complete list of Coalition forces killed in Iraq, just like the one of purported insurgent dead, we on wikipedia must report both sides of a conflict or none at all, just as we do with other wars and conflicts. Bleh999 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and a good idea. Every thing that sounds like it might be a list has been nom, but some of them are clearly more like articles, including this--not that it matters, for it would be good either way and appropriate for WP. DGG (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Don't make bold sweeping statements without backing them up.  Neil   ╦  12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly a a topic which "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject;" CNN, for instance, and thousands of news reports. I also note that the nominator says "It has no encyclopaedic content other than a big long list of names and ranks"; considering that this article consists nearly entirely of "a big long list of names and ranks" (with a couple of external links for sourcing), then this is basically an admission that this entire article is encyclopedic. Also, note that the original AfD closure said that if this article is transwiki'd, it should be renominated to see if there is consensus to delete. The fact that no transwiki has taken place means nothing has changed since the original nomination, so there is no reason to delete. WP:NOT says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The subject of this article, "Coalition forces killed in Iraq" is notable. Individual articles about otherwise non-notable individuals who were killed in Iraq would violate WP:NOT, but this article does not. Furthermore, this is not a copyright violation, as mere lists of facts such as this do not have sufficient creative authorship to be eligible for copyright. DHowell 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has no encyclopaedic content. Neil   ╦  12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is actually very useful reference information, for people writing on this topic, and quite an interesting project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)
 * WP:USEFUL. Neil   ╦  12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per DHowell, DGG, and Mandsford. Mathmo Talk 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DHowell. --Fang Aili talk 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DHowell. – Dreadstar †  17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DHowell. --SkyWalker 17:32, 8 August 2007 (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.