Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ongoing conflicts

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 Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) --MPerel 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ongoing conflicts

Strong Keep - Most of what people know comes from the news. And the news tends to skim over wars and events in "uninteresting" places. You'll never see coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War on CNN. You'll never see coverage of the Internal Conflict in Peru on Fox. This article may be the only way people hear of these wars.

I don't see how this can be an article on Wikipedia. Its unstable and will NEVER be a stable article. Everything added to this article will eventually get removed. This is really just Current events. Im not sure but I believe everything on Wikipedia has to be in past tense, since its presenting things as history. This is suitable for Wikinews, but not as a article in a encyclopedia. Again theres no way this will ever be stable. Theres List of wars which does it the correct way. Coasttocoast (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying an article is unstable because it documents something that changes would invalided every biography of any living person, for starters. This is not a portal, it is a list that complies with WP:CLS in that it presents more information than a category could. This is also not news, as it does not document brief events of limited importance, but points to fully encyclopedic articles that are and will continue to be updated. Finally, it is a subarticle linked to by List of wars. I don't see a real rationale for deletion under any guideline here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep there are quite a few pages linking to this article. The article contains references and is an informative encyclopaedic article. I also think Dhartung is very right about this being an unfair nomination (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) ——Ryan | t • c 07:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is relevant as a guide for the violent and unpredictable world we live in. Wikipedia is a dictionary that is supposed to record this important topic. We don't live in a world where every country is at peace. The people who live in Sudan, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine/Israel would quickly know the importance of this 'list' in their daily lives. Artene50 (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On occasion, lists really are encyclopedic. This is one of those lists. Sourced and about a real-world, non-trivial, very notable topic (unlike, say, all the fan fiction trivia lists which are not about anything approaching real-world relevance). This is also an entry one might expect to find in, say, a print encyclopedia from 1945, which alone establishes it as a definite keep. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is one of the most interesting and original lists in Wikipedia. It is what makes this encyclopedia special and interesting. Eklipse (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a textbook example of where online encyclopedias have an advantage over their print counterparts. This list is by design intended to be updated continually. My only concern is the lack of sourcing, however as such conflicts tend to be notable, this should be easy enough to add. It also needs to be policed to make sure NN material isn't added. 23skidoo (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep highly informative, encyclopedic list of notable conflicts. WilliamH (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think that there have already been many good arguments for keeping this article. No need to repeat them. calhounjames (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. First, it's never stable. More important, it completely lies about the ME and I can't see folks accepting the truth. For instance, it claims the "Israel-Palestinian" conflict began in 1967. It began in 1948, when the Arab Higher Committee, representing the local Arabs (Still claiming Palestine was a British invention) rejected UNR181 and joined with the Arab League (representing Arab nations) to declare war against Israel's existence. Another example is the "Kashmir conflict" that began in 1947. Pakistani and Indian troops have never withdrawn since and it's strange to say it only began in 1989. Unless everyone's willing to list such inconvenient facts, I agree the page should be deleted. ithinktfiam (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - informative, reasonably well-referenced, quite notable topic. About the stability issue: if new conflicts began and ended every day, you might have a point - but they don't; they're not that common. Keeping them all together in a list like this is a good idea, and standard practice. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-referenced article and valid topic. If sometimes in future all over the world all types of conflicts stop, then this list certainly will be invalid and can be deleted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (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.