Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Insurgents killed in Iraq

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. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Insurgents killed in Iraq

List of Insurgents killed in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nothing but a link farm on a page which has to be updated daily to be current. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Corvus cornix 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep First of all this article has the most comprehensive list of insurgents killed in the Iraq war while any other site does not have. Second, newspaper? What do all of these numbers have to do with newspapers. Third, it's not your problem, me and user Publicus have been updating the list from the start since Publicus first put up the article six months ago. Fifth, we need this article, people can't find anywhere else on the Internet a good source on the numbers of insurgents killed in Iraq. As far as I know Wikipedia is just that, a good source for information. So I vote to keep the article.Top Gun 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:USEFUL is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis that the topic is notable as shown by coverage in the mainstream news media, thus satisfying WP:N and that the sources are official reports and articles, satisfying WP:A. I do not believe that adding up claims by troop commanders constitutes original research or synthesis. That said, the numbers may not be completely accurate since claims of enemy killed are often estimates, absent actual body counts, and in a war against nonuniformed opponents any dead civilian may be pronounced an insurgent, even if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It appears that 3 or four editors have taken it upon themselves to maintain the daily updates. If they had done for a while and then quit, the complaint about the need for updates would have more import. Edison 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So you don't think that a page with over 400 external links is excessive? Corvus cornix 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The links are citation/reference links. See: WP:CITE#HOW and Wikipedia:Embedded citations. --Timeshifter 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral The case for deletion has not been made in my view: (1) if the necessity of daily updating was a valid basis to delete an article, all current events articles are liable to deletion; and (2) the sheer number of external links is no reason to delete if 400 is enough, perhaps someone will nominate Deaths in January 2007 which has 413 of them. I am still trying to figue out whther this is really useful in any meaningful sense or whether WP will be the sole repository of this information (contrast this list with the various "executed people" lists, maintained all over the place, and at WP) which would indicate its nonusefulness or possibly a WP:SYNT problem. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. They are not external links. They are references/citations. There are thousands of lists and comparison charts on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please point to two. Corvus cornix 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This wikipedia site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. --Timeshifter 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad example. Those search criteria do not show thousands of articles with over 400 external links and hardly any text. Try again. Corvus cornix 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many examples among those thousands of search results. Examples of wikipedia lists and charts with over a hundred citation/reference links. And I have seen some with hundreds of citation links. See also my comment farther down about many lists of deaths found by another wikipedia site search.--Timeshifter 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- surley this is just a list of links to news articles rather than an encyclopedic article? Thunderwing 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Update to Delete- per Chris below- this can never be a proper article if it remains links to external news stories without any context or content. Thunderwing 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What content would be appropriate? A broader coverage of overall insurgent casualties in terms of battles, skirmishes, etc? The problem we had before this article was finding some way accurately track the casualties using sources. Prior to this, there just wasn't any source of information on insurgent casualties. Perhaps at some point the actual number can be released and then this article could shift to covering casualty trends, tactics, or specific important incidents.Publicus 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I added some text to the introduction: "Besides serving as an indicator of some of the numbers of insurgent deaths during specific time periods, this article allows readers to investigate the circumstances of those deaths by reading the citation articles. It also allows readers and researchers to investigate patterns in the type of insurgent tactics used, and the patterns in coalition responses." Over time some breakout quotes might be added to the article to show some trends in the circumstances surrounding insurgent deaths. Other text could be added too. This might assuage some of the complaints that this is just a list. Lists are allowed on wikipedia, but lists with more text and context seem to be more acceptable. The solution is to add more text, not to delete the article. --Timeshifter 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This is just a giant indiscrimiante list of links associated with an event. Citations are used to back up assertions in an article, not as the content of the article themselves. Even if you wrote out each name, that still is not what this project is for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The assertions are the deaths themselves. The links are the citations that prove it. There are other lists of deaths on wikipedia. By date, by war, etc.. It is definitely not an indiscriminate list. It is a very specific list. To find some of the lists of deaths use these wikipedia site searches: This wikipedia site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Add the word "deaths" to the search to find other such lists. --Timeshifter 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- in the main article of the Iraq war there is a breakdown of killed among the two sides, there is an extremly comprehensive breakdown of coalition, iraqi security forces and contractors killed. That is because there are dozens of sources on the numbers. What about the insurgent side? There should be no number of insurgents killed in the war? Is that what you are saying? There are no, repeat no comprehensive sources on numbers of insurgents killed in Iraq except this one article. If you have a problem white the 400 links, then how can all of those numbers in the article be verifyed. Huh? Those links there are only to verify the numbers are correct. Also they are not external links but references, sources for the article. How can the numbers be verifyed without the references. And like one other Wikipedia user ponted out there are other articles that also have more than 400 links. Delete them why don't you? Also, what's so indiscriminate about this article. Once again this is not a list of links. The references are there to verify the numebrs. It's not about the events but about the numbers in the links. And about the citations, they are used only to point out the totals of insurgents killed in the war. If we remove the references then the article WILL be deleted because the numbers will not be sourced and it will be said that all of the numbers in the article are original research which is not permited in Wikipedia. I once again point out a strong KEEP vote.Top Gun 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is just a linkfarm with no encyclopedic content at all. If there's an appropriate place for this in its present form it's at Wikinews, not here. All it is - and all it can ever be - is "list of news stories in which someone claimed to have killed someone who may or may not have been an insurgent", and that's not appropriate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- Again the point of this article is not on the news stories, what's wrong with you people, they are there only as citations/references. The point is the numbers of insurgents killed. That's the main reason why the links are there. For God's sake there are other articles that have hundreds of links. Oh and Corvus cornix, as for your request for an example of a chart article here's one Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War or this one Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). This is just one more article with a list of casualties of a war. Why are the numbers of insurgents killed any different then those of civilians or Israeli soldiers or American soldiers or whatever. Top Gun 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Both of the articles you pointed to have much more extensive text than this one, in particular Civilian casualtes of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), but I do feel that Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War also has far too many external links, as well. And why do you want to assume the bad faith that I'm trying to delete this for any political viewpoint? Corvus cornix 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you want more text then add more text, don't just imediatly apply the article for deletion. Improve the article before deleting it just because you don't like it how it looks. Also don't get any ideas about Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. And for the last time does are not external links but references, there is a differenc. Top Gun 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep It could have a lot more context; maybe some internal links to other articles - but it's much better sourced than a lot of Wikipedia articles. It does not appear to violate any policies or guidelines, and it is useful (and don't tell me to read WP:USEFUL - some people will whenever the word useful is used, though "arguments to avoid" only applies when that amounts to the core of the argument - not the case here). I don't see how this is a linkfarm. No valid reason for deletion is presented - indeed, the deletion arguments seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Maybe if some names of notable insurgents are added, and perhaps getting rid of all the links (by condensing the "various reported incidents" parts down), it could make a good article. --Whstchy 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keep-This is the ONLY non-classified list of insurgent dead on to be found on any article/website/etc. Since the Coalition and the Iraqi government are not reporting any kind of totals the general public is merely getting a brief snapshot of these casualties. It is similar to the attempts editors have been making to track contractors killed or wounded in Iraq. The Pentagon has said they do not track and have no intention of tracking contractor casualties--yet it is obviously an important casualty figure for this conflict, especially since it represents a unique aspect of the Iraq war. Overall, the article might need to be reworked to improve the look of it as well as the accuracy, but it represents an important attempt to keep track of a important casualty figure for this war.

Also, since in my opinion, the Iraq war represents the first major war to be chronicled by Wikipedia as it occurs, I think lists such as this serve an extremely valuable purpose for overall historical accuracy. For instance, just imagine if Wikipedia had existed during the Vietnam war and if editors then had taken it upon themselves to attempt to accurately catalog the various casualties on all sides-perhaps the overall casualty picture would have been much clearer and more accurate. Instead, the casualty figures for Vietnam are merely estimates that range over thousands of dead/wounded-since many of the public casualty figures had to be gathered months and years after the conflict had occurred. Publicus 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral with the strong suggestion to add content different than mere numbers in it. Keep in mind WP:MOS. --Angelo 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at WP:MOS and found some pages dealing with lists: Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. There are probably more guideline pages. --Timeshifter 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Needs improving but is possibly the only web page that attempts to document this important matter. Slightly Selassie 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Rename I dont think it really does what its says. Maybe a rename to Numbers of Insurgents killed in Iraq since 2003. I suppose it has some validity as a refence tool, but it would look cooler in some kind of frame/wikibox. I appreciate any editor who edits pages daily, but I can see a lot of pitfalls in just a few editors having to find sources continually. Mike33 08:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Lists of deaths. Here is a wikipedia site search that pulls up other lists of deaths on wikipedia. Hundreds of such lists:
  • http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+intitle%3Alist+deaths --Timeshifter 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't see the differences, do you? Those articles are text. This article is nothing but external links. Corvus cornix 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of those lists of deaths have very little text. See:

List of deaths through alcohol

Deaths in January 2007

List of people who died in aviation-related incidents

List of disasters in Australia by death toll

The topic of the list must be notable. It is good if the list is detailed. But it is not always feasible with a list concerning casualties numbering thousands. Here is a list linked below of deaths tabulated by year. This is similar to the insurgent deaths tabulated by months.

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year. --Timeshifter 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. A lot of those are crap, too. But at least they have links to Wikipedia articles. But please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted, I plan on nominating List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year for deletion as well. But if it's decided that crap articles like this one should be kept, then there would be no point in listing any other similar articles. Corvus cornix 17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crap? You say this article is crap? Show me any other article, no any other site, on the Internet that has so extensive reserch on the numbers of killed insurgents in the Iraq war. Wikipedia should be a plce where you find information you wouldn't find anywhere else. Also Timeshifter you shouldn't have given him those examples because he obviously is not listening and it looks like he now want's to delete all of those articles as well. AND FOR THE LAST TIME DOES ARE NOT EXTERNAL LINKS BUT REFERENCES.Top Gun 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is explicitly not "a place where you find information you wouldn't find anywhere else" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are implying that it is original research. It is not. It has sourced info from reliable resources verified with citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 08:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• CommentKeep The other lists have sources which have analyzed the data & the numbers, and WP can report that--this is a page where you do your own tabulation by deciding from primary sources what will qualify. It's a very impressive job, in my opinion, and there should be many good places on the internet to put it. It's a valuable contribution to knowledge, but not for us.:I accept from the information below that the list can be properly maintained & is sufficiently encyclopedic. DGG 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) DGG 01:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as I have said before would favor some kind of rename or it confined to a wikibox. It dont look good an it probably is very falable (online newspapers change casualty figures by the hour, day, week) keeping up with those figures is not for wiki editors. My concern is if the "list" is to exist how can outsiders know it is verifiable? Spent a couple of ours in changed articles and there are plenty of things that go beyond bots or keen editors. If two editors have a wikibreak who can keep an eye on an update? This is a very big concern when wikipedia is under attack for sloppyness. I will vote now. Mike33 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The amount of effort involved by two editors not only makes it unwiky, but just too much. a simple monthly list if editors wish to make added to any of the WAR ON IRAQ articles is enough. Although any list should incorporate any published newspaper or news agency figure. Mike33 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As I have said earlier, I would favour some kind of rename or the numbers (from the list) confined to a wikibox in another article . The article dosn't look good as it stands (akin to a mathematical table on an acedemic site). Above all it is very falable. In that online newspapers change casualty figures by the hour, day, week. Keeping up with those figures is not for wiki editors. My concern is that if the "list" is to exist how can outsiders know it is verifiable? Endless references are for Phd scholars. I Spent a couple of hours in changed articles and discovered that there are plenty of things that go beyond bots or keen editors (inert vanadalism by regular users). If two editors have a wikibreak, who can keep an eye on an update? This must be a very big concern when Wikipedia is under attack for sloppyness. I vote below. Mike33 07:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The amount of effort involved by two editors makes it unwiki. No article on wikipedia should exist by a single arbritor (or two or three). If the editors would incorporate there figures into a wikibox, & added to any of numerous articles about the Iraq Invasion, it would be of a greater benefit. (Although any list should incorporate any published newspaper or news agency figure. especially when it conflicts from editors figures.) On Wikipedia an article becomes a new born baby. Again I appreciate that - tiredless hours. But wiki hours can sometimes be more valuable on many things (Althought I would never suppose that any editor put one page over another) Mike33 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Many wikipedia articles are edited by only a few editors. If the editors of this page want to stop, they can put a date limit in the introduction. They can say that it is a list of some of the insurgents reported killed in Iraq through such-and-such month. Through May 2007, for example. --Timeshifter 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I added some text to the article. I think some more text and context can be added to the article. This is better than just asking to delete the article. --Timeshifter 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike33, like I said to Corvus it's not your problem but mine and Publicus, we are the ones editing the list and updating it. As far as me, I don't intend to take a "wikibreak", like you said, from updating the list because the list has to exist. I have been updating the list for the last six months and will be updating the list until the war ends. And if you are making all of this fuss over the lack of text in the article, THEN ADD TEXT TO THE ARTICLE, don't just delete the article because you don't like it, as a Wikipedia user you should improve the articles, not just delete them because you don't like the way they look. --Top Gun 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well said, Top Gun, there is far too much deletion just because someone doesn't think the current content is good. --Interesdom 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Another list that serves a helpful purpose, but which doesn't really have that much text on it is Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003. Admittedly it does have more text than this list, but more information is actually known about the various suicide bombings than the casualties reported by MNF or the media. Hopefully, as more time goes on this list will get filled in by more substantial reports from non-media sources such as academics or think-tanks. However, despite the skeleton nature of the article, I'm sure it is serving to give Wikipedia readers at least a general sense of the numbers of casualties. Publicus 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's sourced and can be expanded as necessary. Nick mallory 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hopefully some editors will assist in adding more text to the list. If more editors are involved and the two editors are happy to continue (ad infinitum pursuit), then I am happy for a useful page for other researchers to exist. Wikihours are irreplacable but other editors need to be involved. Mike33 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The main complaint seems to be the number of referenced links (described as a 'link farm' but since when were referenced sources considered bad?). For sure, if there were far fewer deaths there would be far fewer links but then no doubt the complaint would be that it is not notable. It can't be both ways: the data is validated and made even more useful and notable by those references. I do think the topic could be improved by turning it more away from a list and having a sentence about each number but I can see that could be difficult to keep neutral. --Interesdom 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not a linkfarm, but a reference farm. This is very useful research tool, perfectly encyclopedic. --ProtectWomen 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and due rewrite Horribly written list, but encyclopediac.--Sefringle 06:13, 25 May 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.