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. While a number of editors have argued that the article should be kept, they did not address the main point of those arguing for deletion, that the list itself was WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the War on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete: No references or sources have been added. The notification template is up since 2008. The article also contains POV as no reliable sources include terrorist attacks in the WoT. JokerXtreme (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the editor who turned this synthesis into a redirect. As an article, it had too much unsourced original research to stand alone (the sourced material merely reflected a section of War on Terror). B.Wind (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfD was closed after this AfD was posted; the RfD of the similarly-titled Timeline of the war on terrorism continues, with the latter redirect retargeted to the nominated article (instead of War on Terror). B.Wind (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Are there accuracy concerns with where it is right now? I'm not sure the objection to it. If there are challenged facts, and nobody fixes them in, let's say 6 weeks, I'd be happy to reevaluate, but seems like a notable topic, well designed page. Lacking some sources, but not a huge issue unless there are some factual issues coming up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article has issues for 2 years now and they still haven't been fixed. The problem is WP:SYNTH as per these: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/War_on_Terrorism_casualties, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theaters_of_operation_for_the_War_on_Terrorism. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am always dubious of lists of events, as normally they are WP:OR even if the only synthesis is in the lead paragraph and the title. Single events are seldom notable, and a list of single events doesn't change that. I think it is telling that this list is an orphan, serving no function in the Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Same as Shadowjams. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per B.Wind and JokerXtreme. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as it is a list of events with no reference(s) joining them together. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unreferenced and most probably WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as per above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its standard to have timelines of important wars and events. If this article is to be deleted, then so must Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war, Timeline of the Gaza War, etc. Plus, this can provide more detailed information than readily available in the article War on Terrorism. All unsourced content can easily be replaced with sourced content, rather than simply deleting the page.--RM (Be my friend) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Those articles you mention are well sourced and the topic is well defined. On the contrary, the War on Terror is a topic that cannot be easily defined, let alone its timeline. If you can you find some reliable secondary source to support such an article I'd gladly change my vote. Although,even in that case, that could be incorporated in the main article.--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is useful list of notable events. Most of the events have their own articles with references. Therefore, the poor sourcing is not an argument.Biophys (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid deletion rationale. If it's unreferenced and out-of-date, fix it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - All of you that feel it should be kept, must find reliable secondary sources to support the claim that this is not OR and synthesis. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:SYNTH as per these: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/War_on_Terrorism_casualties, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theaters_of_operation_for_the_War_on_Terrorism, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Campaignbox_War_on_Terror. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - delition is the opposit of improvement and should only be used as a last resort.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the topic is ill-defined and the article is a mess, deletion is actually an improvement for wikipedia. Take this for example: "September 18 and October 9 - 2001 anthrax attacks kill 5 and infect 17 others by anthrax spores in New York City, New York, Boca Raton, Florida, and Washington D.C. in the United States. " I mean...what the hell does this have to do with the War on Terror? Or this:"*November 2 - Theo van Gogh assassinated in Amsterdam." That's not even a terrorist attack. And why is the Iraq war not included? It is considered as part of WoT by practically all reliable sources. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it could use improvement, but the topic seems definable enough. Reliable sourcing for the timeline can be found in most of the articles that it links to. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ok, I will repeat this once more. Having sources about the individual incidents themselves, does not give us permission to arbitrarily bundle them all up in an article. We need reliable secondary sources that connect all these incidents with WoT and unless those are found, it is WP:SYNTH and the article MUST be deleted. So, all of you that voted to keep this list (probably in haste), must come up with such sources to justify your claims. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed one of the first items in the list is Operation Active Endeavour. Here is an AP Worldstream article that links it to the War on Terror. Here is second and a third. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that OAE is part of WoT, it was actually me who added that in the main article. That's not in question. Are you willing to check for sources for all the elements in the list? It is not a matter of work, it's a matter of content that shouldn't even be in an article like that. Take this for example, about 2003:

May 12 - Insurgency in Saudi Arabia begins.

May 16 - Casablanca bombings in Casablanca, Morocco kills 45 people.

August 5 - Marriott Hotel bombing in Setiabudi, Indonesia kill 12 people

November 15 and November 20 - Istanbul bombings in Istanbul, Turkey kill 57 civilians.

Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. Bombings in Casablanca have nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. Bombing in Indonesia has nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. And guess what, yes, bombings in Istanbul have nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. All those things are irrelevant. And we are talking about the majority of the list items here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, yes, I would be willing, should the article be kept, to go through all the times in the list. Sure, there are some events that don't belong, but that's all very fixable, no? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain - What would be the difference between this and a category called "War on Terror" applied to all the events linked on this page? The page needs sourcing for sure but most of that can come from the pages that are linked to on this one since every event has a link to another page about that event and every one I've checked has sourcing about the facts expressed in this page. I would remove number of kills on the attacks and other text though without going into detail of event to maintain a NPOV on this page. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The advantages of a timeline over a category is that a timeline allows events to be put in chronological order. Also a timeline allows for brief descriptions of each event, while a category does not. In this particular case, it seems a timeline might be more fitting. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What it comes down to, as I mention above, is basically that terrorist attacks do not belong in the WoT. This is especially true for countries that never affiliated themselves with any WoT. WoT is a very specific thing. It's a series of US-led operations, not anywhere near as global as the Bush administration would like it to be. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's true (which it certainly could be), it seems to be very fixable. I'm still not convinced, however, that that's a reason for deletion, is it? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not original reasearch. Qajar (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2010 (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.