Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public opinion in Canada on 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, WP:SNOW. Looks like a good summary of this information is now in Canada's role in the Afghanistan War, thanks to CharlieEchoTango. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Public opinion in Canada on the war in Afghanistan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A few days ago I noticed this soapbox article and, expecting I would have little time to deal with it, posted my concerns at WT:MILHIST. Wikipedians can read about the concerns here and here. Long story short, this article is the worst case of POV I have seen in my 13 months as a Wikipedian.
 * The article is way too big and way too detailed for the subject it covers; this is mostly due to the large swaths of irrelevant and/or semi-relevant content, added for obvious WP:POINT reasons : to give a very negative portrait of the war and Canada's involvement. Also, there is absolutely no need for listing all the available polls, this is simply not in the scope of an encyclopedia.
 * The use of the successive negative quoting is an interesting case of, again, WP:POINT and perhaps WP:ADVOCACY. Note the vast majority of the quotes are from those opposing the war and the Canadian mission.
 * Re WP:UNDUE : Absolutely no mention of support for the war. While virtually all the bad stuff is listed, no good stuff is. But that's not very important because listing the bad stuff and/or the good stuff in such an extensive manner is not crucial to give appropriate and relevant context to the public opinion.
 * It's just generally painful to read and gives an inaccurate portrait of the public opinion. This is a personal soapbox for one or two IP users, who have also been active in other articles on the same subject, and it has been alive for far too long. Regardless of how one feels about the war and Canada's involvement in it, any editor capable of neutrality and perspective would recognize there are huge issues with the article.

I realize that none of the points above are valid arguments for deletion. The valid argument I will make is that there is little to no valuable content that is salvageable in the article, and perhaps not enough valuable content to sustain a standalone article to begin with. Wikipedians should not be fooled by the length (almost 200K!) of the page, most of the content is either repetitive and stacked up to make a point, inaccurate, or both, and is covered in other articles. In light of this, I have added a 3 paragraph section to Canada's role in the Afghanistan War that gives an overview of the public opinion, its evolution through the years, and both opposition and support movements, without going into unnecessary detail. Now, if one day a neutral editor thinks that a fork is warranted and could be written with substantial AND relevant content, than I have absolutely no objection. In the meantime, I think that as this article fails every imaginable NPOV guidelines and its content is covered elsewhere in a far more neutral manner, it should be deleted illico presto.

Sorry for the long introduction, thank you for taking the time to give careful consideration to your !votes, and happy editing all. — CharlieEchoTango  — 03:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC) —  CharlieEchoTango  — 03:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete In all likelihood this article is irredeemably POV. This article has been constructed from the ground up to be a collection of factoids pushing a policy position and the only reason it's gotten away with it is that it's flown under the radar, until now. I'm not sure that after removing and trimming the 90% or 95% of this article that would be required there wouldn't be anything notable left not already covered in other articles. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The nominator makes a satisfingly convincing case that what is needed here is a dose of WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a POV pushing mess that would need to be totally re-written to be a viable article. Including a high level overview in this topic in the Canada's role in the Afghanistan War seems to be a sensible way of handling this topic, and if someone wants to write a NPOV article it can be split out again in the future. Note that the same IP editor responsible for this article has done the same thing to the Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan articles, which are also huge POV messes as a result. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unsalvagable POV. Although the topic can be uncyclopediac, I think it will do a heap of good to everybody if the article is deleted fpr a new start. However, those who haven't been adhering to NPOV will get away with it. Sp33dyphil © • © 10:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per consensus at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NPOV, biased, Undue weight. Also much too long, an obvious axe-being-ground. Couldn't be rescued. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Not much point in my repeating the same arguments. Suggest we also look at Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan which is not dissimilar Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the CF casualties article as POV, it's fairly straight-forward and to the point. Are there specific concerns? The article is on a fine line regarding notability though, as a list of (I hate to say this) "non-notable" individuals. — CharlieEchoTango  — 18:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't quite sure what was wrong with it, it just didn't read like a WP article and was far too long to be useful. I drew attention to it in the hope that a more experienced editor would take a look. Thanks for doing so. I know it's a very sensitive topic.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's bordering very close to breaching WP:NOTMEMORIAL if it hasn't already overstepped the line. 212.137.36.234 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied under your comment on that talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per above. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wow, there is a hell of a lot of work here. I agree that this is a POV nightmare. I suspect there's mergable content amidst the soapboxing, so be sure to userfy this if someone wishes to attempt that in a neutral manner. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy if the author wishes to retain it for reorganisation/readdition in parts later. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2011 (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.