Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019)


 * 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. There was no consensus after two-relists, with a leaning to Keep; there was a vocal minority view that it should be smerged into larger campaign WP articles, however this was felt premature; can be re-visited again. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough material to be a separate article from 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria KasimMejia (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep (from the article creator) For two reasons (1) This article is substantial, and it is an ongoing operation, so its not yet complete (2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - The article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria is already substantial. Putting this information into it would make it too big. Apart from that, this is an important battle that has been going on for about 9 days, involving the the SDF, Turkey, and the TFSA militia, and probably about 200 people have died so far, so its a battle certainly worthy of its own distinct article. It is currently an indicator of the SDF's will to put up a fight against Turkey. Certainly Battles of a lot smaller size have their own articles. Its really the *pivotal* main battle for this operation. Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Everything included in this article is already included in the main article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. The background section is an entire copy of it. There are at most 4-5 sentences in this article that is included in this article but not the main one. They can simply be moved to the main article. Everything seems double written here. KasimMejia (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added more detail, so there is more detail in the article, and there was in fact before. Even if it was, that doesn't mean the battle isn't notable to get it's own article, which IMHO, it is. I've seen battles way smaller than this with less significance, that were regarded as notable enough to have their own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The half of the article is still a copy of the main one. The background section is an exact copy. A lot of stuff in the operation section is also double written in the two articles. Making this article very un-user friendly. Who ever reads the main one and moves into this is just reading what they read over there again. KasimMejia (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "The background is an exact copy"? Its not, I wrote it from scratch and I hadn't even read the other one. Compare them, they are different. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the nomination this isn't significant or notable enough to warrant a separate article. Ras al-Ayn is like half of the offensive and the main article isn't long enough to split off half of its content. Lightspecs (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate sub-page of 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. The military campaign by Turkey just has began. There will be a lot more content on the parent page. The battle should be only very briefly mentioned on page Ras al-Ayn, with a reference to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This battle is already over as SDF evacuated the town. It lasted 11 days, there is no material regarding the battle inside the town to have a separate article. The background section and most of the information about the battle is an exact copy of the main article. The article has over a dozen missing citations. KasimMejia (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This depends on the coverage in RS (it seems to be significant) and if the battle represents a separate well-defined event according to RS. All battles end, and it should not be within the town. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - While this is only one out of many battles during Turkey's offensive, no specific battle pages for this operation have been made on Wikipedia. This was also so far the biggest resistance the SDF made against the Turkish military and the TFSA right on the Syrian-Turkish border; and it was covered in RS too. If that's not notable enough, then I don't know what is. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, the article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria that some editors may suggest is not long enough to split is presently around 8,000 words, from WP:SPLIT - "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.", so suggesting that the length of the Turkish offensive article is not an issue may be slightly misleading. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * delete For now, the battle seems to be over and at this time its to close to events to determine lasting importance.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The events outlined in the article are important enough to merit a separate article. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Ras al-Ayn was a flashpoint and was besieged for many days during the offensive which included urban warfare, so the specific fight for it is significant enough. I believe there's enough independent information in this article's current state to warrant its existence. Helps keeps the main article as de-congested as possible as well. RopeTricks (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Much of the content in this article is a rehash of material from the parent article, and what little isn't can easily be merged into the main article (which isn't that large). Frankly this event is so central to the parent article that it seems strange to have the information split. Further Too soon should apply here as well. We just don't have enough distance to get a good editorial perspective.4meter4 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know why people keep saying that the article for the offensive isn't that large and this should be simply put back into it. The article for the offensive is now quite huge - its 12,000 words. That is over the limitations for a standard Wikipedia article, which according to WP:SPLIT should 8000 to 10,000 words.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no real consensus here with most logical outcome being a merge to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, however, still a material desire to keep this article given current ongoing events; try one last re-list.
 * Keep This helps avoid an overwhelmingly large article, and much like the original Hasakah campaign in 2012 and 2013 this warrants a similar level of attention and importance, albeit the article could use some serious improvements.Takinginterest01 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge per reasons given by 4meter4. There are already 200 articles in the Syrian War Campaing box in 10 separte subcategories, whats to point to create and keep low important articles that are of the same topic.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The original listing was 5 Keeps to 2 deletes, so how can that translate into a delete?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. By after the 1st re-list it swung more in favour of Delete/Merge, with some strong arguments in that regard. Hopefully, the re-list will get to a clearer consensus.  I find that some these types of articles (e.g. current event inside a larger current event), can get kept for a period, but then eventually with the passing of time, merged/written-down into the main article to avoid FORKS and excessive detail. Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If you are talking about voting consensus, there was 5keeps to 2 deletes initially. The re-list saw 2 keeps to 1 delete. Overall, that is *not* an indication that editors are voting to delete the article. Taking into account all votes so far in the three listings, there are 7 keeps and 4 deletes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a majority vote. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for now WP:NORUSH There is enough no trivial source information in this article's current state to warrant its existence. Wm335td (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Delete/Merge  (Nominator) None of the sources explicitly state details about the battle that took place in this town. All the cited sources in the article are related to the larger 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria which already has a detailed article. The article for example has no access to the number of casualties specific to the clashes in this town so there is a clear lack of material. One reading both articles reads absolute no new information by reading this article since its pretty much copied material. KasimMejia (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment KasimMejia you just voted here, but you also are the nominator for deletion! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did nominate it, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to vote, I had not voted previously. KasimMejia (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) This is the article on the battle, you are talking about the article on the operation - they are different - there are plenty of details about this battle, and the investigation into the use of white phosphorus that aren't in the article about the ongoing operation. (2) They shouldn't be put into the main article, because at 12,000 words, it is way too big WP:Split(3) There is a lot of information on the battle, there are probably at least 30 articles that discuss the battle, many actually mentioned the town's name in the battle...the article itself has 49 references (4) There are no articles that mention the casualties, that's because the casualties aren't known - not because they didn't happen. At least 30 or 40 civilians died alone without the numbers of soldiers, but as the battle went on for 10 days, the soldiers killed could be in the hundreds. However, because the number of deaths isn't know, it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Splitting this battle from the article just copies most of the material from the original article. The two major towns in the OP, Tall Abyad and Ras Al Ayn are both written in the article. Tal Abyad battle lasted 3 days, this one lasted 10 days. Both were very brief clashes and can be written under the same article. The biggest reason I'm opposed to this article is because everything is written twice. It's tiring to read the same thing in two different articles. I've learned no new information about this 10 day battle by reading this articles, then I would while reading the Operation article. KasimMejia (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - At this point, the article for the operation is too big, there is extra detail in the battle article that shouldn't be put into the Operation article. If anything, the detail on the battle should be removed from the operation article (now at 12,000 words) to make it shorter to fit within WP:Split. You say this is a brief battle, it went for 11 days! What is your definition of brief?? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * KasimMejia I don't understand, why would you say "None of the sources explicitly state details about the battle that took place in this town" - have you read them? They just about all do, and in fact, look at the titles, many of them mention the town in the title of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I know the article is at 12.000 words. That doesn't mean this article is not a copy of the OP article. This article has an infobox and the information written are already included in the main article. Why do you want to keep this article so much anyway? I know you started it but you shouldn't take ownership of it, see WP:OWN. If you want to write information about this battle you can write it into the OP article, you copied most of the stuff into here. As for a brief battle yes 11 days is short. Battle of Aleppo lasted 4 years for example. Battle of Al-Bab 3 months. This is 11 days, very short. KasimMejia (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * KasimMejia I'm not sure if you have written a lot of articles on Battles, but Waterloo, Austerlitz and Agincourt all took place on one day. So arguing that this battle "only" took 11 days and it should therefore be deleted, by itself isn't a valid argument for deletion. I've already stated the need for this as a standalone battle article compared to the operation article, and I believe we are just going in a circular argument, so I'm not going to re-state it. Clearly you believe what you do and that won't be changing any time soon. Thank you for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This being 11 days is the least of my argument and you should know it by now after 10 comments. I think I've made my point clear at this point and will be referring you to WP:JUSTDROPIT. KasimMejia (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * CommentThis article has now been listed for a total of 23 days, and its been relisted three times. Could an admin please make a call on this article, one way or the other? Thank you, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2019 (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.