Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contributions to the War on Terrorism

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. W.marsh 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to the War on Terrorism[edit]

These articles do not have any references. They are confusing, because this information is compiled by Wikipedia users: not by US Government anknownledging US Allies. For example, Finland and Sweden only have peace keepers in ISAF and UNIFIL, yet they apparently are hunting for terrorists and are US Allies. Why we should have these articles? They're useless, we have articles such as Multinational force in Iraq, ISAF, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies. There we can use sources and list them in appropriate places. Combining an unofficial list of allies in "WAR ON TERRORISM" may be politically biased, useless and inappropriate. We can list the countries in the appropriate articles, not combine some unofficial political list which does not have any references or anything. (Yeah, also Iran is a US ally in War on Terrorism :-) Pudeo ⺮ 09:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion. --82.183.224.40 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't vote keep, based on the problems described above with lack of sourcing, and it does have a heavy POV that would need to be edited. However, statistics about the amount of participation by other nations in Afghanistan and Iraq is notable, and if this isn't located elsewhere, deletion should be deferred. Mandsford 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Flush Countries are described as "allies of the United States" to qualify as part of the "War on Terrorism". For those who don't know, this is why people around the world hate us. They see Americans as acting like the world revolves around Washington DC, and this kind of juvenile drivel just proves them right. People around the world were dealing with terrorism long before Sept 11, 2001. This topic and the way it is written make me embarrassed to be an American. MarkBul 18:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nom. Harry was a white dog with black spots 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any way to make these articles neutral, and they currently seem to duplicate the material on War on Terror (which seems to have major problems itself). Can I point out that War on Terror: Allies and Allied Powers of the War on Terror redirect to these articles so should be deleted too (I don't know whether this happens automatically, so I thought I should mention it). Bistromathic 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oops, forget to mention that there is another similar article that should be deleted if these two are, Targets of War on Terrorism. Bistromathic 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into relevant articles (Afghan war, Iraq war etc) before Deleting per Mandsford Deniz^T_C 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If kept, an alternate name could be given to the second article (it is a list), something like 'international contributions to US-initiated efforts', though I am not sure it would be encyclopedic. Deniz^T_C 08:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Basicly, most of the RELEVANT information is already available in articles such as Multinational force in Iraq, ISAF, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies, so there isn't much reasons to merge anything really, since those articles don't have "original research" on "war on terrorism", and are more accurate.--Pudeo ⺮ 09:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic exhaustively covered in articles mentioned above.--Victor falk 15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe should keep this article, this is to not have to add all these nations to the infobox of the War on terror article. The list has been made out of the information of the articles were it is about so if combatants are removed on those articles they can be removed here. And if this article is removed there is no other place you can see all combatants of the war on terror. The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know it's for the list of War On Terror combatants. But still I prefer deleting it, as reasons stated above. Does the article really need such lists? ISAF & UNIFIL peace keepers aren't really combatants on "war on terrorism". They are still listed, and so, how do we classify "war on terrorism"? Since there is no reference of nations "participating", it's not necessary to list them. Is Russia a combatant on war on terrorism, because they are fighting in Chechenya? Maybe, who knows. But we can't really a compile a list like that. --Pudeo ⺮ 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because there are several wars part of the this war on terror, Russia is fighting their own one and that is not part of "the" war on terror. I don't think we need any sources for this article as it is common knowledge that the US if fighting in Iraq together with Britain and for instance the name Insurgency in the Philippines indicates the Philippines is a combatant. The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a pointless list of nations that says nothing of any detail or context. Details should and can be found in articles like Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies, Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006, ISAF, Multinational force in Iraq, Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa Operation Active Endeavour etc etc Chwyatt 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, nothing worth keeping.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was just checking up the status on my prods and was to nominate it myself.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:05, 6 October 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.