Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive

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. With one exception, nobody is for keeping, and the two "merge" opinions do not say where to. Sandstein 11:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive

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

The title is unworkable. The content tries to call multiple offensives one offense. It duplicates Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015) and the Russian intervention articles. See further comments on talk page by others seeking deletion. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable WP:SYNTH.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Throwing "Un-notable WP:SYNTH" at it without explanation won't help it go away. I see no rationale there. The Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Iraqis and Hezbollah all call their Operation salvation something like this. The Syrians use Quartet front, which has a nice ring to it. Call it a front or an alliance or whatever, but it started at a different time from the Northwestern offensive which is a highly opinionated article based on the template and format of offensives prior to Russia, Iraqi and open Iranian coordination from a command centre in Baghdad. The Northwestern article is blatant spin, making it look like the offensive is ineffective and limited to the one front. Meanwhile Vladimir Putin is boasting and taunting the west with the results that even Western media is starting to admit.[1] This article covers material about the Homs offensive which doesn't have a page and is clearly different and has been very notable in the press yesterday. Also the coming (started already really) Aleppo offensive needs a page which this one starts to cover. Russian sources call it a combined offensive similar to the title and is the most workable for now until a better suggestion. [2] Guru Noel (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Noel is the article creator. The key sources, including the pravda source ^^^ are unreliable Russian, Syrian, and maybe Iranian government propaganda tools that can't be trusted. We don't accept reports of military action from these sources without backup sources. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pravda source isn't in the article. How can it be WP:NPOV to accept reports of military action from the Eastern side of a war unless it's backed up by one from the Western side? Your comment is a total WP:NPOV scandal. Plus, the Eastern side has show the Western to be an unreliable sham and looks more likely of winning (getting peace) now so don't the victors get to write the history/Wikipedia and become the reliable ones now? Guru Noel (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because "western" sources like Reuters and AP are RS, they aren't state owned or essentially state owned, also this isn't a forum on your opinions about the Russian intervention, nor should the article be a way to incredibly push the Russian POV on the situation, although that seems to be what is happening anyway. This also has nothing to do with "the victors writing history" which also isn't how Wikipedia works, and even if the Russian's did win which hasn't been shown, that wouldn't make the non-RS sources suddenly RS. - SantiLak (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Syrian Civil War maps and articles there are strict rules. We don't accept any side's claims of success at capturing places or killing enemy leaders unless there is independant verification (SOHR for example) or the losing side acknowledges a city lost or leader killed. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western sources keep interviewing any old mercenary, ruffian "moderate terrorist" they can find on the ground and reporting them as reliable (a half hour before they run off and give ISIS all their guns). Sorry, but such sources are highly incompetent in my opinion. I would rather choose the state medias of constitutional democracies who's leaders millions people voted legally for as a little bit more factual, neutral and honest. Guru Noel (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artile is full of inaccurate and opinionated "facts" - like listing ISIS as a side opposing regime forces in this serioes of battles, when ISIS isnt involved at all, plus ignoring participation of rebel groups, which are hostile to ISIS.Rebell44 (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IS are all around Aleppo. [3] Russia has been hitting Raqqa since the start. [4] It seems you are completely brainwashed by the American regime and the one reporting inaccurate and opinionated "facts". Guru Noel (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Describing SOHR as 'independant' is jibbering derrangity. This article is unworkable, but it's cropped up because of the overwhelming bias of all syrian war articles, and the unwillingness of the wikipedia community to engage with them....essentially writing them off as not worth the hassle. It'd be better to dramatically cull syria war articles in general, and just have a very few where policies are actually enforced (such as RS, which, no, sohr isn't within a million miles of). 78.144.26.65 (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pov article with a pov title. A mere cursory glance at the mouthful of a title makes that clear. The content seems mostly cherry picked synthesis. Any actual offensive, or series of offensives, will have a proper name, not a made-up one like this, and can probably be covered in existing articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article covers only a small part the topic of the already existing article Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015) (which is much more comprehensive) and throws in several unrelated offensives hundreds of kilometers apart (one not even being government-initiated) in an OR and Synth manner, making it out as if its all one and the same operation (which is not). EkoGraf (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We do not need two articles on the same subject. The other article should be the target, but I am not prepared to comment on how much content should come from each. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At this stage, hard to see any tangible reasons for having 2 articles essentially covering the same unfolding event.Axxxion (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Aleppo offensive (October 2015), whose validity can be questioned in this discussion. It is just utterly unencyclopedic to create a new article virtually on a day of a new turn in the warfare.Axxxion (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aleppo offensive article covers a topic/event that has been notable enough in the reliable media outlets to warrant its own article and has been a current event in the media for the last three days (and still is). In any case, that's a separate and different issue from the one we are currently discussing. At this point it seems most are for the deletion of this article or (per few others) merging relevant info (if any even exist) from this one to the comprehensive article on the ongoing Northwestern Syria offensive. In any case, except for the creator of this article, nobody is for its continuing existence. EkoGraf (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfigure this article definitely could work, but not in this form. Needs to be renamed, heavily edited and have all bias removed. --Schmeater (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All information in the article already covered in two other articles, and much more comprehensively, thus making it redundant as everyone else has said. Combining three different offensives into one is also unsourced OR. EkoGraf (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged Split off into Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq-Jordan Coalition, Aleppo offensive (October 2015), Homs offensive (October 2015), Daraa offensive (October 2015), Damascus countryside offensive (October 2015), Latakia offensive (October 2015) and Quneitra offensive (October 2015). Victors can go and continue writing there. Losers can continue moaning and trying to delete the stuff they don't like that doesn't match their POV. Guru Noel (talk) 09:55, 24 October 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.