Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadi Barada 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 merge to Siege of Wadi Barada. Also adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article per some concerns about potential source issues stated herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Barada offensive[edit]

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

Reason Rebell44 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article is full of false claims/propaganda and lacks any neutral or verified information.Rebell44 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revise I recommend it to be revised and removing Al-Masdar sources from it and keep reuters,it is very disputed that Fatah Al-Sham is there in Wadi Baradah.Alhanuty (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Siege of Wadi Barada, balance the sources with SOHR or something along those lines.--Catlemur (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with siege of Wadi Barada, per above. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with siege of Wadi Barada, plus it is not disputed that Fatah Al-Sham is in Wadi Barada - SOHR also reports it: [1]. Al-Masdar should stay, they are not more biased than most sources on this conflict. Applodion (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Applodion is right, I also saw sources from SOHR saying about clashes in region.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=58247 I would like to say, but i won't(First read idio.s than write something)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge sounds like the right decision here, to me as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (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.