Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned 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 no consensus. Plenty of shaky arguments on both sides of the fence here, but we're obviously not going to form a consensus for deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to discuss content improvements (and a potential merge?) on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. title misleading, suggests event going to happen. Offensive threats could be part of Psychological operations or based on mere speculation and rumors. Numerous sources say such offensive not possible any time soon (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc @Bender235 and George Ho:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per previous AfD (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mosul (2015)). I do see where the nominator is coming from, but there does seem to be enough coverage about this in reliable sources to merit an article of some sort. If consensus is not to keep this time around, I'd suggest a merge into a timeline article, to be split back out when/if the actual battle commences. ansh 666 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is actual evidence that the thing has already started. Ericl (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has inspired other WP:CRYSTALBALLs such as Ericl (talk · contribs)'s Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer 2015 Invasion of Syria.G8j!qKb (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm lean a little more permissive than I probably should on crystalball grounds when its clear that we will, eventually, have a legitimate article. But I'm not willing to extend that permissiveness to discrete military actions. The difficulties in planning and executing an attack on ISIL positions in Mosul is certainly noteworthy, to the extent that it's discussed in cited sources. A (markedly trimmed) discussion of these logistical difficulties belongs (if its not already there; I'll admit that I didn't look closely) in Military intervention against ISIL. But battles are discrete events; this one hasn't happened yet, and I my reading of our "future events" guidelines just doesn't give me faith that the corresponding article should happen yet, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia has articles about what happened, not what might happen. --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom has added a huge amount of {{citation needed}} templates, possibly to make the article look bad. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case and I know we should assume good faith, but that kind of behavior at the same time as nominating it for deletion seems like a move to get more delete votes. Dustin (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but planned offensives widely discussed in the media and reliably sourced can surely be notable. North of Eden (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substancial media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources in the Planning and delays section. It's not WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is for something like, 2021 NCAA Tennis Championships. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the title is ungainly but don't know if alternatives such as Mosul as a coalition target are any better. Greg Kaye 16:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mosul offensive (2015) Note was linked here from this post, not the second listing. Note similarities in topics and content (in particular first non-lead section). Banak (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. EkoGraf (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change title to Planned battle for Mosul (2015). Although, perhaps, the title proposed may be likely used, we cannot know that any encounter will be given a specific name before the event.

See: Planned Invasion navigation page and pages beginning "Planned ..." Greg Kaye 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: In response to your new title suggestion, how do you know/which source claims offensive for retake requires only one battle? Which source says it will take place in 2015? LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mosul offensive (2015) The article as it is does not seem notable to me. An article on the battle should be created if Mosul is retaken from ISIS, but not before. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per the Planning and delays section, as it is not WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, the current title is kind of weird, and should be moved back to Battle of Mosul (2015). It's like an Operation Overlord in planning, and just because it has been pushed back for at for over 7 months doesn't mean that it won't happen. Also, this event is going to have major implications, and just the preparations and events that have happened so far already make this article notable enough to keep. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: LightandDark2000 is article creator. @LightandDark2000: how do you know/which source claims offensive for retake requires only one battle? Which source says it will take place in 2015? Battles are discrete events and this one hasn't happened yet. LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources saying that the US (not to mention Iraq) planned it for 2015. A few quote US Commanders as saying that it may have to be pushed back to 2016, but those sources are not included. By the way, nearly everything in the article is already sourced (with a few exceptions in the lead and the Background paragraph), usually by the order of one source per small paragraph or event. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The title is backed by several reliable sources. The article needs a requested move rather than an AFD. Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 7 August 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.