Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013)


 * 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. I'm closing this as no consensus. Feel free to relist if need be in the future, or continue to evolve and improve the article. Thanks everyone for their input. SarahStierch (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOT. I believe this is a grave problem for Wikipedia's neutrality stance: Most of the information in the Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013), particularly the daily death tolls, are directly adopted from the partisan sources of the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCC) and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). These two organizations are aligned to the Syrian opposition, rendering much of the timeline to a kind of rebel newsfeed. They routinely call opposition casualities "martyrs" and we have no way of verifying the tolls from independent sources. The Syrian Army for its part has stopped reporting casualities in their ranks in mid-2012, so we could not even attempt to counterbalance the rebel LCC and SOHR with biased info from the other side, in the unlikely case somebody would advocate such an approach.

Although the issue was raised at the neutrality board a week ago, dispute resolution attempts through cleaning up the timeline have eventually came to nothing. Note that this timeline is part of a whole Timeline of the Syrian civil war series which are all affected to a varying degree by these issues and, therefore, may all be subjected to a reevaluation by the community. It has been proposed to move whatever reliable information is savable to Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  15:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (gab)  @ 17:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (deliver)  @ 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The timeline introduces very little information beyond what could be found on the main page. It consists mostly of the heavily biased info from unreliable source, which openly supports one side of the conflict. --Emesik (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Only a fraction of the timeline is the death tolls, and in each sentence the death toll's origin is specifically stated. Sopher99 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This does not address the underlying problem. As of today, two thirds of the references still rely on the rebel-affiliated Local Coordination Committees of Syria (= http://www.lccsyria.org) – despite a week of trying to fix the problem on the neutrality noticeboard. And day by day still more references to them are added. It is difficult to see what raison d'etre this timeline has if its contents can (and are) only built up on the basis of biased data from opposition sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep - In my personal opinion these timeline articles shouldn't include the daily LCC claims of the number of dead at all. Because it's not encyclopedic and Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia. The timeline articles should stick to major political and military events that happen in the conflict and mention a death toll when there is a massacre or a battle with a high number of deaths. So, I am requesting to keep this timeline article and the others, BUT please remove the daily death tolls and stick to the major events of the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Have we completely given up on usale sources for the people killed on the other side?  DGG' ( talk ) 22:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replaced half of the LCC sources with reliable sources quoting the LCC - so we keep those. Sopher99 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Government has stopped reporting on the numbers of dead soldiers DGG, only one who is still documenting and reporting is SOHR. EkoGraf (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete These kind of articles are typically train wrecks of unreliable information supported by dubious sources and are basically useless. This appears to be no different. The quality of day-to-day reportage of all ongoing wars is typically poor, and in wars such as this one where journalists are being deliberately targeted by the warring factions the information is useless except when filtered by actual experts operating with the benefit of hindsight (eg, historians). Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep why should the timeline be deleted,it mentions the major events that happen in the day,timelines were done for months before may 2013 Alhanuty (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this and most of the earlier articles in the family due to a complete breach of WP:NOT. It might just be possible to rescue them, but it would require very major surgery, starting with the removal of the daily lists. Would the remainder be worth keeping?  Almost certainly not.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, which part of WP:NOT does it break? Ansh666 04:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete These timeline articles only cite opposition propaganda sources. The LCC? That's a propaganda arm for AL Qaeda that lists all fighter casualties as civilians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dateofrebirth (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and remove all useless stuff like daily death tolls and possibly merge the timelines together if it there is too little information for how these articles are split now. The Syrian Civil War has had a timeline since the very beginning, since it is the sequence of events that made it significant. See here. It was okay when only significant events were added, but these daily death tolls are pretty useless. When these death tolls are deleted, these timelines will have significantly less content, or very little content; if so, then the different timelines should be merged together. The timeline is currently split into 8 articles; I suspect that after the useless information is removed, that we will need significantly less than 8.--98.118.56.224 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The article looks like blatant one-sided propaganda, with a strong political bias - Antonio nn (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of articles on Syria, Syrian human rights, and the civil war There are many others, though the first four in the list are the most relevant.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I edited the article to remove the daily death tolls from the page. I suggest the same thing be done to the other 7 timeline pages, and merge this article to one of the previous ones.--A (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it is flawed doesn't mean it should be deleted. SOFIXIT applies. By the time this conflict is over the pages may need to be merged as one fitting timeline, but that is for another discussion. We shouldn't delete because of flaws, fix them instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep temporarily I state this with reluctance because I do not think the information is encyclopedic. However, A has done a great job of removing what is unreliable and   maintaining reliable sources. Eventually, anything that is salvageable should be merged into the Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war article. I am also uncomfortable with the existence of various other timelines from prior months. I will check to see what sort of sources have been used for the earlier timelines. Likely  it's time to merge these past tallies  in a condensed fashion, to the main article. In addition, there is another article Casualties of the Syrian civil war, that may be appropriate to receive this information. I have not yet reviewed it one for reliability, but I plan to do so. Finally, my vote might change depending on the number of articles relating to the Syrian civil war floating on Wikipedia. I am beginning to suspect this may just be the tip of the iceberg--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete individual timelines and merge them into a single timeline article without the death tolls. Keeping each one of those would later require massive cleanup efforts. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)p. At this state, these articles are noth attempting to build off.
 * Weak Keep Also add battles not on the main page for  the Syrian civil war not just death tolls.Pug6666 19:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly Delete this and all other timelines of the Syrian civil war. There are usually only two sources on this timelines: SOHR and LCC, pro-terrorist organizations in every way. --Sundostund (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this part of the timeline and delete all prior parts of it. Create a single timeline which does not offend WP:SIZERULE, modeled upon Timeline of the Irish Civil War. The single article merged of all the oversize parts will have a statement directing attention to Casualties of the Syrian Civil War. Opposition 'martyr' counts will be anonymised, aggregated and buried in the latter article. That aggregate will be aggregated within a larger one which acknowledges that people other than them were killed and were killed by them, unlike what we presently have in this timeline part.Firmgood (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The casualty listings have been removed; the rest can be kept. (In addition, if the individual timelines are to be merged, then merged articles are redirected, not deleted.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete These require complete rewrite, not just clean up.208.54.36.230 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorporate what is now salvageable in another article
 * Casualties of the Syrian civil war
 * Syrian civil war
 * Human rights in Syria
 * Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war
 * List of massacres during the Syrian civil war
 * Kofi Annan peace plan for Syria
 * Arab League monitors in Syria
 * Syrian conflict peace proposals
 * Keep in current state (without daily casualties). Up to standard of other Syrian civil war timeline articles; best to keep this one for consistency. Ansh666 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) struck as out of date; article has changed. still keep, see below
 * Comment: The current state is in fact as bad as before the AfD. As of today 25 out of 75 footnotes are directly sourced to the rebel LCC. This is one full third flying in the face of WP:RS and WP:Neutral. And the LCC continues to be the source for most of the other casualities, only indirectly so via cited by other news outlets, but while these media at least regularly inform the reader that they don't have independent sources to confirm the LCC numbers, the WP article creates the impression to the reader that the numbers are from the unbiased news outlets themselves (unless they bother to read the cited source). In other words, the timeline in its current form is still a case of source laundering and LCC Timeline of the Syrian civil war is a more fitting name. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not mean that we not include sources and arguments from both sides, instead finding a balance. Less than 1/3 of the sources are not reliable, less than 1/3 of the sources are neutral. I fail to see the problem. IN FACT, the LCC sources have now been removed, which means there is now no problem at all. Ansh666 23:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep' in current state, without casualties or LCC/SOHR sources. There is strong precedent for as-it-comes-in type timelines (for example, the 2011 Egyptian revolution, Libyan civil war, 2013 Korean crisis, the list goes on). Also, for consistency, it's best to have this one along with the others, whether in condensed or expanded format. Ansh666 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - but remove the casualties. We have a timeline for the Libyan civil war, don't we?-- 03:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, and it also endured similar POV source accusations and warring. (Also, FT, you accidentally used 5 tildes ) Ansh666 03:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, but is "POV source accusations and warring" a strong criteria for deletion?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. Note that my "keep" !vote is right above yours. ( again!) Ansh666 04:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh... right :)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: can we please re-list this debate? Bearian (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: We need to get a consensus on what to do with LCC and SOHR material throughout WP.EN, therefore: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Syrian Civil War: Local Coordination Committees of Syria and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another comment - there are no more of these non-reliable sources left in the article, so the nomination's main point (ridding the article of unreliable sourcing) is moot. Also, I feel that this was more of a content dispute than a real attempt at deletion - it can and should be fixed in another venue. Ansh666 23:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, for anyone interested, I suggest reading the Libyan civil war timeline talk pages, to see how they dealt with it. No AfDs were involved. Ansh666 06:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) (just remembered, there was one AfD, to rid a horribly POV-forked article, IIRC Ansh666 18:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC))
 * Merge appropriate content to Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war, per nom. Article violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX.  Mini  apolis  18:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge This article can be fit in to the main page for the Syrian War you can highlight main events but exclude minor things as on this list. Have some WP:COMMONSENSE, the article doesn't fit policies and frankly, the average Joe Shmo has no desire to read this. If some things become a footnote on the merge article I could see replacing it, but for now it is not proper Wikipedia material. Leoesb1032 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The only valid argument against the original version was that it wasn't neutral. This is not now the case.  The dubious sources have been removed. The unreliable data also.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I was about closing the discussion as no consensus, but following the request of Bearian, I am relisting it for another week.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete I am still for a full deletion, I find almost surrealistic the only june updates, there's not only a problem of cited sources and notes, it seems all the news are one-sided; the article needs a full rewrite or at least an extensive and deep editing, that is hard to achieve due to its biased foundation - Antonio nn (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Duplicate !vote.
 * You can not vote twice Antonio. EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article looks considerably improved from when it was first nominated, as do the other timelines. The remaining problems are not ones that cannot be worked out through gradually modifying the existing article.--69.54.63.225 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as before. The debate over LCC and SOHR sources has distracted from the basic fact that this is not an article at all; it is just an indiscriminate collection of raw primary material per Nick-D above.  Alternatively merge per Leoesb1032, which is practice somes to the same thing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Duplicate !vote.
 * You can not vote twice Jonathan. EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am leaning Keep for now, per WP:HEY. There are still lots of problems, but I think they can be solved through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Nonsense nomination rationale. Neutrality issues can be resolved by editing, therefore our deletion policy does not allow deletion for what can be solved by editing. AfD is not for cleanup. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

>


 * Delete it seems all the news are one' it seems to carry one-sided biased language. Sandrkam (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2013 (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.