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. As the consensus shows, it is not appropriate to have the whole list as the article. Tone 11:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006[edit]

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

The article seems seems to be unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a memorial ground. While I respect the people who sacrificed their lives for our country, I do not believe that Wikipedia should have this list about each person who died in Iraq. Killiondude (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that this recently closed AfD should give some precedence to these types of articles, too. Killiondude (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Note that this is likewise up for deletion. Very sad, very well-referenced, totally inappropriate. DS (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is not a "memorial", it is a listing of names. (A memorial would say "A devoted father of three...", etc) Lists of names like this, especially well-referenced ones, are vital to history as they solidify claims that "X people died"; if we had the names, ages and hometowns of every Jew killed in the Holocaust, we wouldn't see Holocaust denial. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information is properly preserved on other websites. And even if we did have proper names/ages/hometowns of every Holocaust victim, there would still be deniers. The names/ages etc of the people who died in the attack on the Pentagon are all known... and there are already people who claim it didn't happen. And bear in mind, we (that is, WP) don't have lists of everyone who died in those attacks. I believe we did, but they were removed. Similarly, we don't have lists of every US soldier who died in Vietnam (even though such information has been recorded), or of every innocent victim of the Mumbai attacks, or etc etc. An itemized list of every soldier to have died in the Iraq war does not meet criteria for inclusion. DS (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its properly sourced.67.33.110.79 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have nothing but the greatest respect for these people. That said, I don't find it to be particularly appropriate to an encyclopedia. It is more of a memorial to those people that died that something with any informational value. How about a list of names of everyone who has died of cancer? — Jake Wartenberg 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete undue recentism, developed-world bias, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Buckshot06(prof) 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom - raw data like this isn't encyclopedic. Other websites and books record the names of those who have died in this war, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to have articles such as these. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that "The list may be a valuable information source." (WP:LISTPURP) For example, if I wanted to figure out how many coalition troops were killed in a particular city, or how troop deaths correlate with age or location or rank, or any number of other questions, a list like this would be very useful. While other lists do exist, my (brief) search didn't find any containing as much data as this one. Gruntler (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and not a memorial. Fences&Windows 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc as above. This sort of information is what the "external links" section of articles is for. EyeSerene^talk 09:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per NOT:Memorial (even if effort had been made to bring this article to a higher standard: wikilinking, table sort function, referencing) it would still fail on that criteria. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not appear to add any value to the encyclopedia and could be replaced by a simple link to an external list in the relevant overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With all due respect to those on the list, this sort of thing can be found on external websites; but perhaps more importantly, it doesn't really serve any purpose here. Knowing how many were killed, indeed, but their names and other details seem too...wellm detailed for wikipedia. Skinny87 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. We use lists as a way of guiding readers to Wikipedia articles with something in common, not as a way of collecting bits and pieces of information from hundreds or thousands of newspaper articles. There are lots and lots of other wikis on the Web; anyone willing to collect and post this information elsewhere is welcome to do so. But keeping this list at Wikipedia would be a very bad precedent: List of U.S. state legislators in 2008; List of Chief Financial Officers of major corporations in 2007; List of restaurants reviewed by the ''New York Times'' in 2009; List of bills signed into law in 2005 by the Virginia state governor. All of these would be totally supportable by reliable sources, and all of them would be clear violations of WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't a guide, and it isn't a place to collect bits of related information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says that every person who ever served in a U.S. state legislature or its equivalent in other countries, is presumed to be notable, even if only one time for 8 weeks . So a list of a subset of them, like for one state in one year, is not so clearly nonnotable as you appear to believe. Edison (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Western bias and recentism. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and most of those above. This is a true violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, is insensitive and unencyclopedic. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to Wikisource, where lists of every person killed in every historical war could be maintained. With all respect for those who fought and died for their countries in a good war, Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory. This war is not more encyclopedic than the World Wars or various other historic wars. Edison (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. Wish it could be transwikied somewhere, but a cursory glance at Wikisource's criterion suggests it's a no-go. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (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.