Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil war in Iraq (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 Keep.--JForget 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Civil war in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Content fork to Iraq War, Iraqi Insurgency, and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006. Isaac Pankonin 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —Isaac Pankonin 06:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep No reason offered for deletion. Its a 'fork'. So what. Hmains 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is covered in more detail in other articles. No information is unique. It's the same information under a different title. Let's say there were two articles named "Hillary Clinton" and "Senator Clinton". You would want one of them to be deleted. I thought "content fork" was clear. I apologize. Isaac Pankonin 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this a content dispute. All articles are notable and duly referenced, but highly controversial. The article you nominated as a fork has withstood a previous nomination, and was created over 2 years ago. Given the highly contentious nature of these subjects, these should be processed through the proper channels before simply nominating for deletion as a fork. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is covered in more detail in other articles. No information is unique. It's the same information under a different title. Let's say there were two articles named "Hillary Clinton" and "Senator Clinton". You would want one of them to be deleted. I thought "content fork" was clear. I apologize. Isaac Pankonin 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Iraq War article gives a general overview of the sectarian conflict and points to the civil war article for more information. The main Iraq War article has many important sub-topics that are expanded upon in other articles. The civil war, a significant conflict within the war, is one of them. Also, please note that the AfD immediately follows two content disputes involving the nominator. • Gene93k 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and re-write. As I wrote MANY times (see the talk page!), the name should be "Sectarian strife in Iraq" or "Sectarian violence in Iraq". The "civil war" is already covered by the Iraqi insurgency, terrorism by Terrorism in Iraq, the war in general by the Iraq War and yes, the post-invasion Iraq by Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006. The sectarian violence article should be about the violence which is NOT political, but motivated simply by sectarian hatred (which is, for example, that Mr. Sadr is completely unrelated - but the rogue elements in the Mahdi Army stay). Which means bombings of a random Shiite civilians and the pogroms of Sunnis, for example. --HanzoHattori 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I second the point that there is no reason given for the deletion. This conflict indeed qualifies as a civil war conflict. Contrary to the HanzoHattori contentions, this is a civil war. Most civil war-deemed conflicts arise directly from sectarian conflicts, see the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and so on. Few conflicts have a strictly political nature as in the U.S. Civil War or the anti-Bolshevik civil war of 1917-1922. Dogru144 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above.--Schonken 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep and close. Nominator failed to provide reason for deletion. Does the nominator wish to delete, merge, modify, disambig? Content disputes should be resolved at the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. In any case, it's a commonly used term in the public and media, and can refer to any of the above-linked articles, so meets notability. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wars can be part of other wars. See WWII, Pacific War, Second Sino-Japanese War, Pacific War, French-Thai War, und so weiter.--Victor falk 12:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.