Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq War order of battle, 2009

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Iraq War order of battle, 2009}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iraq_War_order_of_battle,_2009 Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Iraq War order of battle, 2009}})

No longer serves a purpose. This used to be a continuously updated list of currently deployed units, but it ended up frozen in 2009 because nobody was updating it. To me it doesn't make to sense to preserve an order of battle from this particular moment in the war. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Afghanistan/Iraq orders of battle: time to delete? for background. Cerebellum (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - this was questionable even at the time as its scope ("the entire conflict for the year" as opposed to the order of battle for, well, a battle) skirts the edge of WP:NOTDIR, and the includion of unit CO names is slightly concerning (a lot of these I would question if they were actually publicised - lots of times they arent and therefore they would be inferred). Even without those concerns thoough this is, as the nominator mentions, not an encyclopedic subject in the state that it is in, and I don't see how it could be rebuilt to a specific level of encylopediacity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite using a specific month chosen from the Institute for the Study of War source available at http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/irOrbat_Dec09thruNov2011.pdf. Suggest December 2009. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep but restructure -- A snapshot of the order of battle in one month is not worth having. Even if we did it should cover the whole force, not just the American part of it. I suspect that units will have been rotated in and out of deployment: either they should all be listed or, better, the higher level formations that remained there with commanders and lesser units varying from time to time. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

::Comment {{u|Peterkingiron}} - the UK's presence in the south ended on 30 April 2009, and by DEcember 2009 other coalition forces were probably reduced to odd liaison officers and NTM-I (already acknowledged in the ISW list). All the higher Multi-National Divisions that remained thoughout supervising rotating units are all listed in both ours and the ISW lists. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: not useful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::This is a bad argument per WP:USEFUL

• Keep - appears well-referenced. Not opposed to renaming it to a specific month though.FOARP (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - The discussion at MilHist had mixed results and little background. I don't see much of an explanation of the reasoning here, either. OoB's are often a useful way of organizing lists of involved units, have historic value, are common in published literature, and are present in encyclopedia-like compendiums and thus seem to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.