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 delete. See User:Sandstein/AfD closing for methodological comments. Although "keep" and "delete" opinions are about equally divided by number, the "keep" opinions make particularly weak arguments in the light of applicable poilicies and practices: Most amount only to WP:USEFUL, and do not address the WP:NOT#NEWS issues raised by the other side, which is an argument based on the core policy WP:NOT and would therefore at least need to be discussed by those wanting to keep the article. Sandstein 06:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tentatively nominating this per WP:NOTNEWS. The information contained in this may be valuable, but to my eyes the problem is that it does nothing but provide coverage of an inherently transient situation. For that reason I feel it constitutes journalism, and not encyclopaedic content. An article written after the conflict detailing how areas changed hands would be appropriate, but not this.

In addition, the article is very poorly sourced - there are lots of references used, but they are mostly to verify the population of each area mentioned, and these references disguise the lack of sources for the actual point of the article - which areas are controlled and which ones aren't. I actually feel that this information is difficult to verify at all with the situation as fluid as it is, and so it's probably best to hold off creating this article until the conflict is concluded. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The author of the article left a comment at the talk page of the Syrian Uprising article here. I'm not necessarily making any accusation of canvassing, but I just want the closing administrator to be aware of this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. I don't think an article like this is of encyclopedic value; as the nominator said, the situation is too fluid, and by the time it's not fluid, there likely won't be a need for such an article (because the two most plausible outcomes are that the opposition will control either all of Syria or none of Syria). Sleddog116 (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is transient news information. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) To clarify, I think the issue here is not that this covers recent events, but that the very nature of the page requires near constant updating and is only relevant for a limited amount of time. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; an encyclopedia should not try to keep track of a moving ball like this. Definitely a NOTNEWS problem, as well as WP:RECENT. An overall history, maybe with a timeline, is the way to go. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator: I thought I would give some background about the creation of this list. There were talks around the Syrian uprising articles of the need to provide a map of the conflict similar to the one that was given in the article about the Libya revolution. So I created this list as a first step to help us create such a map. The list would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it is helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. The list will make the creation of a map easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on a template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…) So I view this list as more of a supporting article to the main article on Syrian Uprising (and other related articles) . The list will make the Syrian Uprising article better by allowing the creating of supporting maps, tables, etc. The list being itself an article has the advantage of allowing a wide spectrum of editors to add their little piece of sourced info to create the big picture. Keep in mind that articles such as the Syrian Uprising one, are updated every day and wikipedia readers want to read about the conflict today and not necessarily after the conflict is over. The sources of the list allowed the creation of the following two maps which I think are useful to help in understanding the conflict:

Next, I wanted to clarify the concerns related to the “sourcing” of the list. The article has very few references at this time because it relies heavily on one authoritative study (see above) that was recently released. However, as time goes by, the list will be updated from other sources.

To summarize, I would say that deleting this list will deprive Wikipedia from a nice tool to create maps and other supporting materials for the Syria Uprising articles. Tradedia^talk 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only WP:NOTNEWS, in some ways this is WP:OR as well, if you want a place to create maps and gather info there is always wikipedia commons and Sandbox as well as making your own userpage for this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that wiki commons, Sandbox, userpage will not allow a wide range of editors to help in collecting the sourced info (I have no intention of doing all the work to create the maps on my own) Tradedia^talk 17:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a regular editor of the Syrian uprising article, I would say that Tradedia's hard work does not constitute original research, but is rather a visual representation of information from a reliable source. It generates no information, no OR, but merely displays reliable information in a different form. People create graphs of GDP on the basis of government data; I therefore do not see anything wrong with creating maps of combat situations. Additionally, the argument about the article changing over time could be said of any article on current events. I like it, and it adds a helpful visual element to the crisis. Fanzine999 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article on the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list is 18K. Do you think the Syrian Uprising article can absorb it? Tradedia^talk 17:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything, just merge the Maps of areas held by Syrian opposition in June with a few comments on the maps. Everything else delete. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to create a new up-to-date map (once this one is no longer up-to-date) without the list? The map is based on the sources of the list. The list is the mother, the map is the daughter. The map doesn’t just appear by magic. Someone has to draw it based on data. Tradedia^talk 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Than draw it. And please tone down the sarcasm. There is no need for it. And if you want to merge the table than do that too. In regards to the 18K, it can substantially be trimmed down if the individual maps of Syrian provinces are deleted. They don't show anything at all anyway except where the district borders are. If they showed individual rebel and government territories ok, but as they are at the moment they are not needed. EkoGraf (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to be sarcastic but rather struggling to clarify an important point. Let me do a better job at explaining. I cannot draw a map unless there is an up-to-date list. I am not willing to update the list all by myself because it is too much work. So that is why I want the list to be an article, so that a wide range of editors can participate in updating it from RS. If the list is an article, then everyone can look at it and insure it is NPOV and based on RS so that when maps are created or whatnot, the credibility/truthfulness of these output elements (maps) is not in question.

Concerning the individual maps of Syrian provinces, I put those so that readers who look up the status of a specific town can figure out its location. For example, if someone looks up the town of Al-Rastan, the table will show him that it is in Ar-Rastan District and in Homs province. So the reader will go down to the Homs province map and easily see the location of Ar-Rastan District. Even if we remove the province maps (which are about 2.5 pages on my computer screen), there will still be the table/list which is about 100 items and about 7 pages long. The length of the list will get much longer as more information will be added by editors about areas that are now listed as n/a (non available), so the list could become double the length of it today. It would seem strange to have in the Syrian uprising article, a table that is more than half as large as the rest of the article. Tradedia^talk 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The individual maps are still not needed. A user can just click on the name of the town and go to the town's article and see the map there where it is located. If this article is not deleted or merged I highly recommend removing those individual maps. EkoGraf (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I removed the province maps. Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge to Syrian uprising (2011–present). This is certainly news. The creator of this article is likely trying to give a separate updated situation on the ground in Syria where the Syrian government cannot hold territory in the countryside and whenever they leave a rebellious town, it immediately falls into rebel hands. The article could be merged into the Syrian uprising but it would not be easily done. Its a tough call for the Administrator. --Artene50 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If not a keep, how about a merge of the maps into the timeline article? The maps could then be displayed alongside the other information, and show a visual chronology alongside the text, if that makes sense? Fanzine999 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if the list does not exist anymore then, the maps will not exist either because, the maps are based on the sources of the list. Tradedia^talk 17:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a news service. When everything has settled then the history can be writted in stead of chasing current affairs with poor inaccurate information.Petebutt (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“When everything has settled then the history can be writted”: this is not how articles like Syrian uprising work. Are we waiting for the uprising to be over to write an article about it? No. The article is being updated every day. Our readers expect to get up to date coverage of the conflict. We are constantly updating death tolls, demonstrations, political positions, etc. and all these you can argue are “poor inaccurate information”. This is the nature of conflict type articles…

I went back and read NOTNEWS carefully. It does say: “As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events.”; “Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.” It seems to me that the NOTNEWS policy is geared more towards avoiding primary research and trivial newspaper items rather than, deter editors from including up to date info about very important topics. I cite again from the NOTNEWS policy: ”Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source.”; “Wikipedia is also not written in news style.”; “routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.”; “Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.” Tradedia^talk 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately - I see a page of propaganda here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a field of expressing someone's own views.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This shows different territory in Syria, the maps we should keep, and this article actually shows what is happening when the Syrian uprising article is mainly dealing with deaths, not territorial changes that are happening recently in Syria. Goltak (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)
Keep - this is good work and it displays the information successfully good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.58 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — 24.0.208.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -It is useful. The Maps we should definetly keep, and this article actually shows what is happening when the Syrian uprising article and it shows that the regime is losing land — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use neutral wording while on Wikipedia Alhanuty, we have established regime is a weasel word. EkoGraf (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The map is coming from a syrian oipposition blog. I found it and posted it on a talk page as an indication, saying it was not reliable but someone has been posting it in all articles.--DanielUmel (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly mistaken. I defy you to find these two maps anywhere other than on wikipedia. These are 100% wikipedia maps, made by wikipedia, for wikipedia. Again, these maps are based on the sources of the list. And the sources of the list are all RS as they should be. Non-RS are not allowed on this list, just like for any other wikipedia article. Tradedia^talk 01:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll be honest, I'm not seeing much from keep !voters here other than "it's pretty and I like it". I think an article or map of this type chronicling the control of territory during the conflict would be a good idea once the conflict is concluded, but for as long as the situation is so fluid all that's being proposed here is a ticker. The crux of the problem here is that it's not just elements of the article which are prone to change often (as is the case in the Syrian Uprising article, or a biographical article concerning a recently deceased subject, for example) - the entirety of the content is transient and subject to change. In addition, because of the nature of conflict, it's inherently impossible to reliably verify the content that would be required for this article, especially since journalists have such limited access to the areas in question. It's important that we don't use wikipedia as an advocate or propaganda host for either side (even the side which appears undoubtedly "in the right" to most rational people). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as an issue too, I think we should just stick to the maps to show areas of control for the opposition at least for now, thats what we did for the civil war in Libya and it turned out fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This "but the map is great" argument is equally anaemic. You claim that it's based "on the same sources as the list" but as I pointed out in the nomination the list is hopelessly undersourced - most of the "Controlled" column is unsupported. I think the maps are useful, but as content based on the list they suffer from the same problems. Ultimately, the maps are prettier than the list but they suffer from exactly the same problems, in that they are entirely transient, inherently difficult to verify with accuracy and are unsourced. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a misunderstanding relating to the “sourcing” of the "Controlled" column. If the “Details” column is not empty, then the reference(s) is attached to it and the "Controlled" column has no superscript ref. This is because the "Controlled" column is a summary, in a sense, of the “Details” column. Moreover, you see a relatively small references section, because a lot of the info comes from the authoritative study that was recently released by the Institute for the Study of War (see above). The rest of the info is sourced to Reuters, bbc, washington post, the economist, the guardian, Miami herald, scotsman and itv news. So again, all the info in the "Controlled" column is sourced to RS. If you find any town that is not sourced to a RS, then please switch it to n/a (non available). As time goes by, the info in the study by the Institute for the Study of War will become outdated and new info will have to come from other RS, which will increase the size of the references section. Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“all that's being proposed here is a ticker”: The list is more than just a “ticker”. It doesn’t just have a yes/no in the "Controlled" column. In addition, it gives some historic details in the “Details” column like the dates of change of hands (and the circumstances) and other info such as the name of the free Syrian army battalion in the area, the strategic importance of the area (like key smuggling nodes from Lebanon, turkey…), etc. For example, the “Details” column of Haffah says: “Haffah is a Sunni Muslim town that lies in the foothills of the coastal mountains that form the heartland of Assad's Alawi sect. It is strategically located close to the port city of Latakia, as well as, the Turkish border which has been used by the rebels to smuggle people and supplies. On 12 June, the military recaptured al-Haffah, and the remaining 200 FSA fighters under heavy bombardment by government forces withdrew from the town. The rebels were reported to have retreated to Turkey.” This gives some historic perspective and will stay the same until Haffah falls into rebels hands. In this case, we could just keep the previous text and add new text relating to the rebels taking it back. This will give a historic of events and not just be a “ticker”. Obviously, this will lead to the article increasing in size over time, but might be worthwhile.

“the entirety of the content is transient and subject to change”: this is theoretically true. However, in practice, this is an exaggeration. For example, since I created the article a few days ago, no RS Has reported a change in hands in one of the towns that are on our list. On the other hand, in the meantime, death tolls for example on the syrian uprising article have been updated a few times already. So for example, the maps I show above and that were done on july 2, would look the same if they had to be redone today. In fact, Khan Sheikhoun changed hands on july 6, but since it is on The eastern edge of one of the “safe zones”, it did not change the shape of the “safe zone” by more than a hair.

“it's inherently impossible to reliably verify the content”: see my response to EllsworthSK below.

“It's important that we don't use wikipedia as an advocate or propaganda host for either side”: I don’t see how this article is more prone to propaganda than any other political article. All the info will come from RS; The same RS that we use for all other articles. The way propaganda gets removed from Wikipedia is because a wide range of editors are participating. If a “pro-opposition” editor puts something not from RS, then a “pro-government” editor will remove it (and vice versa); not to mention all the neutral editors who work tirelessly to correct/remove POV. I would argue that the list article is less prone to propaganda than the other Syrian uprising articles. This is because in the other articles, decisions have to be made on what events to cover, how much weight to put on the different events, how to word things, etc. On the other hand, in the list article, there are much less decisions of that type to be made. The editors will just report what RS are saying about who holds what. For example, no one today is claiming that the opposition holds Haffah. On the other hand, you will have disagreement on who did the latest massacre for example, who were the victims, why it happened, etc… So I expect the talk page of the list article to be rather boring as compared to that of the syrian Uprising or other articles… Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for many readers of Wikipedia a list that notes the areas of control by the government and the opposition is very useful and expected. This conflict has been going on for a year now and will likely go on for some time. Noting the areas of control only after the conflict is over is not the way an up to date encyclopedia is created. Wars go on for years and readers expect to know what territory is controlled by which party. The article, however, does need work on the layout and choice of maps at the bottom. If the article is deleted, the user who created the list can place it on his talk page where other editors, who work on the Syria topic, can update the information in an organised fashion for use in other related articles. Guest2625 (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is a I like it comment, it does not address the problems put forward by people here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the argument put forward not to include the list of occupied territory is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that material would be considered too recent. However, the question arises how do you create an encyclopedia article of an event that is evolving with time. My main concern is that wars usually take years. Encyclopedia's during World War II, the Vietnam War, or during any other war didn't hold back on making lists or maps of held territory just because the war was ongoing. It is in fact completely unencyclopedic not to chronologically detail the changing territory of a war that is certainly what was done during World War II. The question becomes how many years into the Syrian war should Wikipedia wait until it is 'not a newspaper' like to inform the reader of the chronological change in territory. Guest2625 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every conflict is diffrent, in WWII for example there were people on the ground from other countries and the conflict was more widespread mapping of the conflict was also done on the ground, the allies did not know everything an example being the death camps. Trust me I would love to see an article like this but for now given the issues I think maps would do just fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not think that at this moment this map is at the level of Wikipedia quality, however I do support the base idea of a list of rebel held areas. A map would also be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.20.89 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I struck out this comment by user 24.0.208.70 due to it seeming to be the same IP editor that already cast his opinion up above. You can only vote once. EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, this article could potentially be very helpful, because it appears to be a pretty good representation, of the current Syrian situation. However, I also don't get it, how Wikipedia cannot have content about news. Just because this is a fluid topic, doesn't mean that it isn't fit for Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not like a paper encyclopedia, so there's nothing wrong with including information about current events, here. For example, Wikipedia even has a Portal, all about Current events. So, in my opinion, there is no reason why this article should be deleted. SuperHero2111 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as I argued many times before, currently it is not possible to create such list or map. In some cases, control over areas, villages and towns is shifting rather rapidly and many times is not reported. This is not frontline war as in Libya, this is asymmetric warfare. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“currently it is not possible to create such list or map.”: In this case, explain how the prestigious Institute for the Study of War has done exactly this. They have released a study last month that show such maps on pages 8 and 12. The major point of their study is that the nature of the conflict is changing: “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” These zones have been relatively stable in the last few weeks for example. The list is not trying to track every village. As you can see, the list is essentially the capitals of the 64 districts and a couple dozen more major towns. These do not change hands that often and when they do, plenty of RS report on them. For example, no major town was reported to change hands in the last 3 days. On the other hand, Khan Sheikhoun changed hands on july 6 and plenty of RS reported the news (the independent, fox, etc) A town changing hands is more reliable news than other things we report on routinely in the syrian uprising article such as a tank being blown up with five soldiers killed... There will never be in the article anything that is not reported by a RS. If the washington post is willing to make a statement about who controls what, then we should be able to use that. Our standards of reliability are not higher than those of the RS we use. As the opposition keeps getting more weapons from outside, the nature of the conflict will continue to move towards a more traditional war of positions… Tradedia^talk 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet that prestigious Institute map is wrong on load of levels. Jisr al-Shughour, we had a journalist in that area who was very explicit (together with rebel fighters originating from that town) about who controls it. Army, not rebels, they have presence on outskirts but it is not rebel hub as yadayada Institute claims [1]. There are also no sources talking about rebel activity in Druze Sweida, where locals remained neutral out of fear. And I am not talking about towns, but also villages. For example how many sources mentioned Houla before the massacre? One and that was nearly year ago. We knew nothing about who controls it. How many sources reported about Azaz? Nearly none, I still can´t figure out how comes that border checkpoint is under army control while city is under rebel control for months. Gathering sources for Deir ez-Zor article is one extremely major pain in the arse as all I can find is claim by SOHR which just say "army shelled the area, killed several civilians" what is cool but who controls the damn city? Asymmetric warfare and map of control does not go hand in hand. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“Jisr al-Shughour, …who controls it… Army, not rebels,”: Nowhere in the article you link, they say that Jisr al-Shughour is under army control. They talk about the city of Idlib and say: “The army holds the center of Idlib, the largest city in northwestern Syria, but the edges of the city and the surrounding areas belong to the rebels.”

“There are also no sources talking about rebel activity in Druze Sweida, where locals remained neutral out of fear”: The institute does not claim that any major town in Sweida is held by opposition. What they are talking about is a very small area which is the continuation of the area controlled by opposition east of daraa city (their control does not stop at the frontier of Sweida province). You can see this very small area on the map. So there is no contradiction between what you said and what the institute said.

“We knew nothing about who controls it”: this is fine. It just stays n/a (non available). I am not claiming we should know who controls every single town. Wikipedia just reflects what the RS say, nothing more.

“who controls the damn city?”: The latest RS in the list is Aljazeera from june 28 which says: “the opposition almost entirely controlled the city of Deir ez-Zor, while the government army had shelled it, trying to take it back.”

“prestigious Institute map is wrong on load of levels” No. As I show above, the Institute’s map is correct. Tradedia^talk 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this does not belong in Wikipedia, this is a make up ongoing thing - not an article, or anything worth keeping. Per nom as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be helpful. Guillaume70 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator: On a second thought, maybe the article’s name should be changed to “List of areas held by Syrian opposition” (without “currently”). In this case, the “currently” aspect will be deemphasized. The list will then collect the historic evolution of the control of a town. This is already done in the “Details” column of many towns in the list (See my example for the town of Haffah in my response to Basalisk’s comment above). The "Controlled" Column will still give the latest status as reported by RS. All this will make the article more encyclopedic. Obviously, this will lead to the article increasing in size over time, (as more events keep accumulating over time, without the previous events being removed), but might be worthwhile. Also, the maps being done over time will all be included to give the historic evolution. Tradedia^talk 16:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Update: I have been actively working on transforming the article following the new orientation above. I am now convinced that this is the way to go. I now have a better appreciation for some of the comments by those who voted to delete. The list will now give both the historic and the present of the holding of towns. As time goes by, the historic part in the “Details” column will be synthesized as to not become too long and detailed. This is the same as the Syrian uprising article where we keep adding new up-to-date info, but also go back and synthesize what is already there to avoid the article becoming too long and detailed. Tradedia^talk 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A map showing the areas held by the opposition has been added to the Syrian Uprising main article, it pretty much shows the areas held rather than going into detail like this article does and can also be updated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the map will be updated without using the list article. Tradedia^talk 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By using reliable sources per WP:V, and avoiding simply relying on references to other unsourced wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a misunderstanding relating to the “sourcing” of the "Controlled" column. If the “Details” column is not empty, then the reference(s) is attached to it and the "Controlled" column has no superscript ref. This is because the "Controlled" column is a summary, in a sense, of the “Details” column. Moreover, you see a relatively small references section, because a lot of the info comes from the authoritative study that was recently released by the Institute for the Study of War (see above). The rest of the info is sourced to Reuters, bbc, washington post, the economist, aljazeera, france 24, new York times, the guardian, Miami herald, Scotsman, itv news, etc. So again, all the info in the "Controlled" column is sourced to RS. If you find any town that is not sourced to a RS, then please switch it to n/a (non available). As time goes by, the info in the study by the Institute for the Study of War will become outdated and new info will have to come from other RS, which will increase the size of the references section. Tradedia^talk 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map of how Libya was done: [[File:Libyan Uprising(2011-03-06).svg]] the map is from March 2011 and was updated as the conflict went along with references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this:

What is easier for the person who will update the map?

(a) Find all the references already collected in one convenient place, or

(b) Have to go all over the internet looking for references Tradedia^talk 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this fails WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:OR. It shouldn't be being used as a source for maps as well - that's WP:SYNTH. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, though it needs to be refocused as 'Areas held by the Syrian opposition.' 'Current' is not possible (WP:NOTNEWS) but a more detailed history of areas captured and lost will be helpful later on. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2012 (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.