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 to delete. I suggest people who want this to be transwiki'd go ahead and transwiki it, and make sure WikiSource/WikiNews wants this content, then bring it back to AfD once it's been accepted somewhere else and see if there's a consensus to delete this from Wikipedia. W.marsh 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This article lists every Coalition casualty of the Iraq War in 2006. Unfortunately, listing every foreign casualty of the Iraq War is not of encyclopedic value. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. – Zntrip 04:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, article is maintained and up-to-date, providing readers with frequently-sought information that is of the calibre commonly found in history books. Wikipedia is about NPOV knowledge, and this article/list is in no way trying to give any POV slant or paint rosy pictures of the soldiers - but doesn't belong to be merged with Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. Compare it with List of Coalition aircraft crashes in Iraq, List of Coalition aircraft crashes in Afghanistan, British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001, Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan, and the earlier-history List of Soviet aircraft crashes in Afghanistan. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 was proposed for deletion, but was kept after a substantial rewrite. Articles of this type need a lot of work in order to be acceptable. Hut 8.5 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a nice set of info and very well maintained, but this kind of stuff is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. The list is far too long to be useful and there's not even links from the page to anywhere else. It's essentially a memorial without being too overt about it.--Velvet elvis81 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work to make it more navigable, yes - but it is every bit as valid as the others. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is an inappropriate list. Killroy4 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LIST badly. It has no navigational or developmental value, and is not remarkably useful. It is a list of non-notable people who were only named in the media because they died. Wikipedia is not a memorial. ~~I also qustion whether this list is properly maintained, unless the United States is a coalition of one.~~ Resolute 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see the non-US deaths listed. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you are right. I scanned the list quickly, and missed the four British casualties. The remainder of my argument stands, however. Resolute 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dying does not confer notability, and we would never have a list of non-notable people in an article of their own. If we allow articles listing deaths, what is to stop us listing deaths for every huge battle? The Somme? What about older battles? The Battle of Hastings? What about obscure battles with many deaths? What about the predicted 5.8 million people killed in Operation Barbarossa? Wikipedia is not the place for this. J Milburn 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Comment I would venture to say that if the article is deleted, someone out there may appreciate a copy being available somewhere. If that's not actually feasible/possible then it's not actually feasible/possible Rfwoolf 11:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it is incomplete and fails WP:LIST. It appears to be taken from here (see the large table part way down 'military casualties by month'), so (more complete) info is available elsewhere on the web. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify Agree content is not encyclopedic for reasons listed above. An encyclopedia summarizes rather than simply listing every detail. Suggest moving content to a user page rather than deleting outright. --Shirahadasha 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Would this go to somewhere like Wikisource? Probably not. Just a thought Computerjoe 's talk 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed; this kind information is useful. It may not belong in wikipedia, but it would be a shame to see it simply deleted. Joshdboz 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews perhaps? Resolute 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to say delete as it's clear a lot of work went into this and I understand the desire for this sort of thing, unfortunately it is too long of a list and really is a thinly veiled memorial. More importantly, keeping this would set a precedent for similar lists for every conflict/war ever. --The Way 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and transwiki. Wikinews perhaps, but Wikibooks as the start of a text on the Iraq War is a viable option too. —siro χ o 10:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikisource Not a good encyclopedia article, since most of these unfortunate people are not individually notable other than being on this list. However, it might be worth considering transporting it to Wikisource as it could be a good piece of historical material there. Dugwiki 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. This information could be useful, but it doesn't make a good encyclopedia article. Hut 8.5 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This information would be useful if it was complete. An incomplete list of this sort is misleading, which I think is worse than useless. The information looks as if it has come from here, but there are large omissions in the version we have here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia is best at, and most used for. I have seen this articles like this frequently used in numerous arguments. ;;;Rewrite;;; if necessary, but don't delete. In my opinion, given the unique nature of the list, and the frequent use of similar articles (such as other casualty lists), this is a strong candidate for Wiki:IAR, if nothing else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews or Wikisource, I don't think this information is so bad that it should be deleted, but it's also not worth keeping here on Wikipedia. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - probably wikisource would be the best place for this, although its an excellent resource and needs to be kept, its not really suitable for wikipedia.Ms medusa 23:12, 27 January 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.