Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of civilian killed by US force in Fallujah

Doesn't seem like a stand alone article is necessary. Rmhermen 15:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Unverifiable in the extreme. Also, there are supposed to be more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US forces in the latest war, plus any killed during the "No Fly Zone" days. Since the US military will not release estimates of numbers, we'll have zero ability to know the number, much less the names. Geogre 17:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and it doesn't really serve a purpose. CR 18:02, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Quadell (talk) 20:31, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, ungrammatical title. — Gwalla | Talk 03:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary. Deb 17:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I find "doesn't really serve a purpose" and "unnecessary" very shocking. I wonder whether the people who wrote that feel the same way about the Vietnam War memorial in the U.S.? The civilian deaths in Iraq and especially in Fallujah are woefully underreported in the mainstream media. Every day you can read about the n-th U.S. soldier who died, but most articles don't even bother to mention that the number of Iraqi civilians killed is at least an order of magnitude higher. Never mind, they're just Iraqis -- they don't really serve a purpose. The blanket assertion that entries on this page are "unverifiable" is wrong. They are potentially difficult to verify, but so is a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia, about political scandals etc. -- the standard procedure on Wikipedia is that if there are conflicting reports all opinions are voiced. If someone doubts a particular story, it can always be prefixed by "channel X reported that...". This is no reason to delete a page that could potentially give valuable information that is extremely hard to come by by other means. Fpahl 04:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • But there is no list of Americans killed in Vietnam, even though that list would be fairly-well verifiable. There's also no list of Israelis killed by Palestinians or list of Palestinians kliied by Israelis. These Fallujans aren't notable or encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an obituary list. (By the way, you're assuming the worst about those who voted to delete. I protest against the war every week. I wear a pin with the name of an Iraqi child killed in the bombings. But I know it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia.) Quadell, 11:45, Sep 15, 2004
    • I didn't assume anything merely on the basis of "Delete" votes, and I'm glad to read that your vote was based on an argument that I can appreciate. If the parents of the child whose name you wear had started this page and saw an argument that this sort of thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, they might agree, but if they just saw comments that this is "unnecessary" and "doesn't really serve a purpose" they would probably be offended. It's not a coincidence that you who apparently care about Iraqi children didn't write such a comment. Answering your argument, though: While you're right that the pages you mention don't exist, I don't quite see what distinguishes these sorts of pages from other pages where there's difficult-to-verify stuff that needs to be prefixed with "channel X reported that", "it has been alleged that", etc. to make it NPOV.
• Delete - IT IS unverifiable. And more significantly totally POV. -- Crevaner 15:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, quasi-POV, delete with extreme predjudice. Oh, and learn the difference between singular and plural, or stick to Sunniwiki. Terrapin 16:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)