Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aleppo(2012)

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The result was Nomination withdrawn due to notable events that took place after nomination which are reported in this article, and no outstanding vote to delete. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Aleppo(2012)

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

Contested prod. One-line stub about a skirmish that occurred last week, and about which the only source merely gives a passing mention as part of a larger conflict, and nowhere does that source refer to a "Battle of Aleppo". Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. change to Merge per Ellsworth and information added after the start of this discussion. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is a battle in aleppo the free syrian army controls some neighborhoods in aleppo city ,the battle in Aleppo city is way different than the fight in the governance, for an example the battle in Homs city is different than the battle in Homs governance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs)
- The source you provided does not state how this particular battle is different than the main one. Neither do you, as a matter of fact. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited does not use the term "Battle of Aleppo". If better sourcing is available, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion now that the page has been significantly changed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we can add more information, or if the clashes continue as they did in Damascus. Goltak (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a violation of the Wikipedia rule on predicting possible events. W:NOT Crystal ball EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:SNOW. Also battle continues, per [1] [2] [3] [4] EllsworthSK (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, ~~merge~~ with Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising per WP:CFORK. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your reference, "Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising" is originally "Aleppo protests", which was turned into a timeline article without any vote (it is therefor a WP:SYNTH).Greyshark09 (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about that is ongoing in Talk:Aleppo_during_the_2011–2012_Syrian_uprising. Anyone can join it, if you are interested. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After recent events I am changing my vote back to keep. Notability of this article has been proven and so it should have its own page. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~ Media not calling it a battle for the city like they did the clashes in Damascus, and per most sources the majority of the fighting is concentrated on just one district of Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Keep, it has evolved and become notable. EkoGraf (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keepthe article is small it only needs more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I striked out this vote and comment because its Alhanuty's IP adress. You can only vote once. EkoGraf (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the event is all over news, and i don't agree to the "regional timelines" policy; wikipedia is about notable events (main encyclopedic value), not timelines (quiet secondary).Greyshark09 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A battle for the city is not in the news, a battle in one district of the city is. So calling this Battle of Aleppo is highly missleading. EkoGraf (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising may be the best option. This is important current news that is substantiated by reliable news sources. --Artene50 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this first Aleppo article talks about the fighting in the governorate, this talks about the battle inside Aleppo city . (third time (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The city is in the governorate. That's the point of the merge. EkoGraf (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per EkoGraf بحرآني (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasonning that the new Damascus page. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event of the war. Deserve its own article. --Kormin (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Keep. EkoGraf is right. This is a totally different article than Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising Missed this fact. --Artene50 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've abstained so far with a neutral opinion, nut now with what's going on [5] I say Keepas a battle. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major battle covered extensively by multiple news sources, and still ongoing. Dtnoip28 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Same reason. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is obvious. Can someone close this? Everyking (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article was put in AfD way too early, and as it has become really notable i request this be closed as soon as possible by an Admin. Jacob102699 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2012 (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.