Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mosul (2015)

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. There is a clear consensus for keep but not for a rename. Though I am for a rename, the article will have to be re written a bit for that so the title does not differ from the content. I suggest someone start a rename proposal at the talk page perhaps. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mosul (2015)[edit]

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

The page clearly violates the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy of wikipedia, trying to promote an alleged battle to "liberate Mosul", which may or may not take place in the future GreyShark (dibra) 11:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - if there are sufficient, reliable sources about this offensive, I don't see why it should be deleted, as long as there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Many planned events have articles. And Military intervention against ISIL is incredibly long, so I support the fork. However, the battle infobox should be removed (as it contains the projected info such as military leaders) and perhaps the article should be rename to indicate it is planned, such "2015 planned offensive in Mosul" or whatever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - No battle has occurred, and many analysts are saying that any offensive by the Iraqi Government on Mosul may be delayed until 2016 due to recent defeats in Anbar Province. It need to be rewritten to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL. Gazkthul (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it it - Because I highly doubt that anyone would be willing to rename it back to Liberation of Mosul. This article is about a planned offensive, like the D-Day invasion, only it hasn't happened yet. Reliable sources point to the fact that the battle is planned to begin in August or September 2015, and since the current article title bears the correct year for the starting point of the offensive, it should not be renamed at the moment. Also, due the huge significance and importance of this event, and the preparations and pre-offensive events leading up to it, the article should be neither merged nor deleted, as it is too important not to have its own article, just like how Liberation of Paris and Fall of Berlin were all events that were significant enough to have their own distinguished articles. Since the Liberation of Mosul will be a turning point in the War on ISIL, at least in Iraq, the article should be kept as it is. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (and probably rename). Seems to me that a large part of the current content has nothing directly to do with a planned "Battle of Mosul" offensive - we have a long day to day list of incidents but many of them, such as the air strikes, have nothing to distinguish them from similar incidents elsewhere in Iraq or Syria and have no supporting sources that state they were directly connected to (i.e., directly supporting) a planned campaign by Iraq to retake Mosul from IS forces. It is almost a case of OR or Synthesis to group them all together in this way. Yet at the same time they are all connected in that they are all military actions that took place in the Mosul area against IS. So I think either a rename is needed (perhaps to something like "Military interventions against IS in Mosul"), or a drastic pruning of the existing content is needed to remove anything that is not directly connected by sources to a planned offensive to capture Mosul. And the battle infobox has to go - if it is a future campaign details like belligerents and strength of forces are speculation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. I don't see any problems with it, it seems fine as it is. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LightandDark2000 and name change is probably going to change its actual meaning. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't see much of a problem with the "Liberation" title (take Liberation of Paris, for example), but since it hasn't actually happened yet, it would be too much of a stretch to go on to rename the article at this time. LightandDark2000 (talk)

Keep but rename - The crystalballing has been ongoing for a while, especially in regards to the title. It used to be called 'liberation' but was changed to the more appropriate 'battle'. This supposed battle is not going to take place any time soon and efforts to predict a future event should not be allowed. There are however enough sources to warrant a rewrite of the article to make it more encyclopaedic. Mbcap (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2015 (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.