958:(3) There is a lot of information on the battle, there are probably at least 30 articles that discuss the battle, many actually mentioned the town's name in the battle...the article itself has 49 references (4) There are no articles that mention the casualties, that's because the casualties aren't known - not because they didn't happen. At least 30 or 40 civilians died alone without the numbers of soldiers, but as the battle went on for 10 days, the soldiers killed could be in the hundreds. However, because the number of deaths isn't know, it doesn't mean they didn't happen.
455:- While this is only one out of many battles during Turkey's offensive, no specific battle pages for this operation have been made on Knowledge. This was also so far the biggest resistance the SDF made against the Turkish military and the TFSA right on the Syrian-Turkish border; and it was covered in RS too. If that's not notable enough, then I don't know what is.
544:- "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.", so suggesting that the length of the Turkish offensive article is not an issue may be slightly misleading.
954:(1) This is the article on the battle, you are talking about the article on the operation - they are different - there are plenty of details about this battle, and the investigation into the use of white phosphorus that aren't in the article about the ongoing operation. (2) They shouldn't be put into the main article, because at 12,000 words, it is way too big
901:
which already has a detailed article. The article for example has no access to the number of casualties specific to the clashes in this town so there is a clear lack of material. One reading both articles reads absolute no new information by reading this article since its pretty much copied material.
1053:
I'm not sure if you have written a lot of articles on
Battles, but Waterloo, Austerlitz and Agincourt all took place on one day. So arguing that this battle "only" took 11 days and it should therefore be deleted, by itself isn't a valid argument for deletion. I've already stated the need for this as
595:
Ras al-Ayn was a flashpoint and was besieged for many days during the offensive which included urban warfare, so the specific fight for it is significant enough. I believe there's enough independent information in this article's current state to warrant its existence. Helps keeps the main article as
267:
is already substantial. Putting this information into it would make it too big. Apart from that, this is an important battle that has been going on for about 9 days, involving the the SDF, Turkey, and the TFSA militia, and probably about 200 people have died so far, so its a battle certainly worthy
973:
the same article. The biggest reason I'm opposed to this article is because everything is written twice. It's tiring to read the same thing in two different articles. I've learned no new information about this 10 day battle by reading this articles, then I would while reading the
Operation article.
972:
Splitting this battle from the article just copies most of the material from the original article. The two major towns in the OP, Tall Abyad and Ras Al Ayn are both written in the article. Tal Abyad battle lasted 3 days, this one lasted 10 days. Both were very brief clashes and can be written under
310:
I have added more detail, so there is more detail in the article, and there was in fact before. Even if it was, that doesn't mean the battle isn't notable to get it's own article, which IMHO, it is. I've seen battles way smaller than this with less significance, that were regarded as notable enough
325:
The half of the article is still a copy of the main one. The background section is an exact copy. A lot of stuff in the operation section is also double written in the two articles. Making this article very un-user friendly. Who ever reads the main one and moves into this is just reading what they
1023:
Yes I know the article is at 12.000 words. That doesn't mean this article is not a copy of the OP article. This article has an infobox and the information written are already included in the main article. Why do you want to keep this article so much anyway? I know you started it but you shouldn't
829:
If you are talking about voting consensus, there was 5keeps to 2 deletes initially. The re-list saw 2 keeps to 1 delete. Overall, that is *not* an indication that editors are voting to delete the article. Taking into account all votes so far in the three listings, there are 7 keeps and 4 deletes.
417:
This battle is already over as SDF evacuated the town. It lasted 11 days, there is no material regarding the battle inside the town to have a separate article. The background section and most of the information about the battle is an exact copy of the main article. The article has over a dozen
660:. Much of the content in this article is a rehash of material from the parent article, and what little isn't can easily be merged into the main article (which isn't that large). Frankly this event is so central to the parent article that it seems strange to have the information split. Further
987:- At this point, the article for the operation is too big, there is extra detail in the battle article that shouldn't be put into the Operation article. If anything, the detail on the battle should be removed from the operation article (now at 12,000 words) to make it shorter to fit within
685:
I don't know why people keep saying that the article for the offensive isn't that large and this should be simply put back into it. The article for the offensive is now quite huge - its 12,000 words. That is over the limitations for a standard
Knowledge article, which according to
1008:
I don't understand, why would you say "None of the sources explicitly state details about the battle that took place in this town" - have you read them? They just about all do, and in fact, look at the titles, many of them mention the town in the title of the article.
1054:
a standalone battle article compared to the operation article, and I believe we are just going in a circular argument, so I'm not going to re-state it. Clearly you believe what you do and that won't be changing any time soon. Thank you for the discussion.
268:
of its own distinct article. It is currently an indicator of the SDF's will to put up a fight against Turkey. Certainly
Battles of a lot smaller size have their own articles. Its really the *pivotal* main battle for this operation. Thanks!
293:. The background section is an entire copy of it. There are at most 4-5 sentences in this article that is included in this article but not the main one. They can simply be moved to the main article. Everything seems double written here.
211:
811:
these types of articles (e.g. current event inside a larger current event), can get kept for a period, but then eventually with the passing of time, merged/written-down into the main article to avoid FORKS and excessive detail.
52:. There was no consensus after two-relists, with a leaning to Keep; there was a vocal minority view that it should be smerged into larger campaign WP articles, however this was felt premature; can be re-visited again.
711:
This helps avoid an overwhelmingly large article, and much like the original
Hasakah campaign in 2012 and 2013 this warrants a similar level of attention and importance, albeit the article could use some serious
370:
Per the nomination this isn't significant or notable enough to warrant a separate article. Ras al-Ayn is like half of the offensive and the main article isn't long enough to split off half of its content.
432:
This depends on the coverage in RS (it seems to be significant) and if the battle represents a separate well-defined event according to RS. All battles end, and it should not be within the town.
205:
1107:
This article has now been listed for a total of 23 days, and its been relisted three times. Could an admin please make a call on this article, one way or the other? Thank you, cheers.
807:. By after the 1st re-list it swung more in favour of Delete/Merge, with some strong arguments in that regard. Hopefully, the re-list will get to a clearer consensus. I find that
137:
132:
263:(from the article creator) For two reasons (1) This article is substantial, and it is an ongoing operation, so its not yet complete (2) Knowledge is an encyclopedia - The article
141:
733:. There are already 200 articles in the Syrian War Campaing box in 10 separte subcategories, whats to point to create and keep low important articles that are of the same topic.
844:
1028:. If you want to write information about this battle you can write it into the OP article, you copied most of the stuff into here. As for a brief battle yes 11 days is short.
164:
124:
1068:
This being 11 days is the least of my argument and you should know it by now after 10 comments. I think I've made my point clear at this point and will be referring you to
897:(Nominator) None of the sources explicitly state details about the battle that took place in this town. All the cited sources in the article are related to the larger
898:
763:
653:
537:
473:
389:
290:
264:
243:
493:
392:. The military campaign by Turkey just has began. There will be a lot more content on the parent page. The battle should be only very briefly mentioned on page
171:
513:
111:
96:
226:
193:
128:
343:"The background is an exact copy"? Its not, I wrote it from scratch and I hadn't even read the other one. Compare them, they are different.
187:
1116:
1081:
1063:
1045:
1018:
1000:
982:
967:
949:
935:
911:
887:
856:
839:
821:
799:
778:
742:
721:
699:
673:
642:
605:
587:
570:
553:
525:
505:
485:
464:
441:
427:
405:
380:
352:
335:
320:
302:
277:
254:
120:
72:
66:
183:
91:
84:
17:
233:
437:
401:
637:
105:
101:
199:
751:
717:
614:
583:
1133:
40:
1112:
1059:
1014:
996:
963:
931:
835:
817:
795:
774:
695:
433:
397:
348:
316:
273:
62:
561:
For now, the battle seems to be over and at this time its to close to events to determine lasting importance.
852:
657:
549:
521:
501:
481:
766:, however, still a material desire to keep this article given current ongoing events; try one last re-list.
566:
1129:
878:
There is enough no trivial source information in this article's current state to warrant its existence.
713:
579:
460:
36:
1033:
1077:
1069:
1041:
978:
945:
907:
738:
601:
423:
376:
331:
298:
250:
1108:
1055:
1010:
992:
959:
927:
831:
813:
791:
770:
691:
344:
312:
269:
219:
58:
664:
should apply here as well. We just don't have enough distance to get a good editorial perspective.
848:
661:
545:
517:
497:
477:
540:
that some editors may suggest is not long enough to split is presently around 8,000 words, from
883:
669:
562:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1128:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1029:
875:
456:
1073:
1050:
1037:
1005:
991:. You say this is a brief battle, it went for 11 days! What is your definition of brief??
988:
974:
955:
941:
940:
I did nominate it, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to vote, I had not voted previously.
923:
903:
734:
687:
633:
597:
541:
419:
372:
327:
294:
246:
790:
The original listing was 5 Keeps to 2 deletes, so how can that translate into a delete?.
54:
1025:
578:
The events outlined in the article are important enough to merit a separate article.
879:
730:
665:
158:
624:
393:
289:
Everything included in this article is already included in the main article
762:
Still no real consensus here with most logical outcome being a merge to
926:
you just voted here, but you also are the nominator for deletion!
1124:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
754:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
617:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
154:
150:
146:
218:
769:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
623:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
242:Not enough material to be a separate article from
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1136:). No further edits should be made to this page.
512:Note: This discussion has been included in the
492:Note: This discussion has been included in the
472:Note: This discussion has been included in the
899:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
764:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
654:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
538:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
390:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
291:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
265:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
244:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
474:list of Military-related deletion discussions
232:
8:
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
494:list of Turkey-related deletion discussions
514:list of Syria-related deletion discussions
511:
491:
471:
1036:3 months. This is 11 days, very short.
7:
388:. This is a legitimate sub-page of
596:de-congested as possible as well.
121:Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019)
73:Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019)
24:
396:, with a reference to this page.
97:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1117:20:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
67:19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
1082:13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
1064:13:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
1046:07:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
1032:lasted 4 years for example.
1019:07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
1001:07:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
983:06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
968:02:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
950:06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
936:02:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
912:09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
888:21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
857:04:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
840:01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
822:11:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
800:20:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
779:20:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
743:12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
722:04:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
700:01:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
690:should 8000 to 10,000 words.
674:14:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
643:14:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
606:16:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
588:21:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
571:09:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
554:04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
526:04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
506:04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
486:04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
465:18:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
442:15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
428:11:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
406:01:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
381:23:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
353:11:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
336:09:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
321:07:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
303:06:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
278:01:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
255:15:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1153:
1024:take ownership of it, see
845:AFD is not a majority vote
1126:Please do not modify it.
311:to have their own page.
32:Please do not modify it.
326:read over there again.
729:per reasons given by
85:Articles for deletion
434:My very best wishes
418:missing citations.
398:My very best wishes
55:(non-admin closure)
760:Relisting comment:
662:Knowledge:Too soon
781:
645:
528:
508:
488:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
57:
1144:
1034:Battle of Al-Bab
1030:Battle of Aleppo
768:
757:
755:
714:Takinginterest01
658:WP:REDUNDANTFORK
629:
622:
620:
618:
580:David O. Johnson
237:
236:
222:
174:
162:
144:
82:
53:
34:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1134:deletion review
782:
750:
748:
646:
641:
625:
613:
611:
179:
170:
135:
119:
116:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1150:
1148:
1139:
1138:
1120:
1119:
1109:Deathlibrarian
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1056:Deathlibrarian
1011:Deathlibrarian
993:Deathlibrarian
960:Deathlibrarian
952:
928:Deathlibrarian
915:
914:
890:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
832:Deathlibrarian
814:Britishfinance
792:Deathlibrarian
771:Britishfinance
767:
758:
747:
746:
745:
724:
705:
704:
703:
702:
692:Deathlibrarian
677:
676:
631:
621:
610:
609:
608:
590:
573:
556:
536:, the article
530:
529:
509:
489:
468:
467:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
409:
408:
383:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
345:Deathlibrarian
313:Deathlibrarian
281:
280:
270:Deathlibrarian
240:
239:
176:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
59:Britishfinance
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1149:
1137:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:WP:JUSTDROPIT
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
971:
970:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
951:
947:
943:
939:
938:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
909:
905:
900:
896:
895:
891:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
870:
869:
858:
854:
850:
849:Coolabahapple
846:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
828:
825:
824:
823:
819:
815:
810:
806:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
789:
786:
785:
784:
783:
780:
776:
772:
765:
761:
756:
753:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
725:
723:
719:
715:
712:improvements.
710:
707:
706:
701:
697:
693:
689:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
648:
647:
644:
639:
635:
630:
628:
619:
616:
607:
603:
599:
594:
591:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
546:Coolabahapple
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:Coolabahapple
515:
510:
507:
503:
499:
498:Coolabahapple
495:
490:
487:
483:
479:
478:Coolabahapple
475:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
450:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
382:
378:
374:
369:
366:
365:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
309:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
275:
271:
266:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
245:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:Find sources:
177:
173:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1125:
1123:
1104:
920:
894:Delete/Merge
893:
892:
871:
826:
808:
804:
787:
759:
749:
727:Delete/Merge
726:
708:
682:
650:Delete/Merge
649:
626:
612:
592:
575:
563:Slatersteven
558:
533:
452:
414:
385:
367:
340:
307:
286:
260:
241:
229:
223:
215:
208:
202:
196:
190:
180:
167:
78:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
638:revolutions
457:SkoraPobeda
206:free images
1074:KasimMejia
1051:KasimMejia
1038:KasimMejia
1006:KasimMejia
975:KasimMejia
942:KasimMejia
924:KasimMejia
904:KasimMejia
735:Mr.User200
598:RopeTricks
420:KasimMejia
394:Ras al-Ayn
373:Lightspecs
328:KasimMejia
295:KasimMejia
247:KasimMejia
1130:talk page
876:WP:NORUSH
37:talk page
1132:or in a
989:WP:Split
956:WP:Split
874:for now
752:Relisted
688:WP:SPLIT
615:Relisted
542:WP:SPLIT
165:View log
106:glossary
39:or in a
1105:Comment
921:Comment
880:Wm335td
827:Comment
805:Comment
788:Comment
731:4meter4
683:Comment
666:4meter4
634:spin me
534:Comment
415:Comment
341:Comment
308:Comment
287:Comment
212:WP refs
200:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
1026:WP:OWN
559:delete
368:Delete
184:Google
142:delete
627:78.26
227:JSTOR
188:books
172:Stats
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
1113:talk
1078:talk
1060:talk
1042:talk
1015:talk
997:talk
979:talk
964:talk
946:talk
932:talk
908:talk
884:talk
872:Keep
853:talk
836:talk
818:talk
809:some
796:talk
775:talk
739:talk
718:talk
709:Keep
696:talk
670:talk
656:per
602:talk
593:Keep
584:talk
576:Keep
567:talk
550:talk
522:talk
502:talk
482:talk
461:talk
453:Keep
438:talk
424:talk
402:talk
386:Keep
377:talk
349:talk
332:talk
317:talk
299:talk
274:talk
261:Keep
251:talk
220:FENS
194:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
63:talk
652:to
234:TWL
163:– (
1115:)
1080:)
1072:.
1062:)
1044:)
1017:)
999:)
981:)
966:)
948:)
934:)
910:)
886:)
855:)
847:.
838:)
820:)
798:)
777:)
741:)
720:)
698:)
672:)
636:/
604:)
586:)
569:)
552:)
524:)
516:.
504:)
496:.
484:)
476:.
463:)
440:)
426:)
404:)
379:)
351:)
334:)
319:)
301:)
276:)
253:)
214:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
65:)
1111:(
1076:(
1058:(
1040:(
1013:(
995:(
977:(
962:(
944:(
930:(
906:(
882:(
851:(
834:(
816:(
794:(
773:(
737:(
716:(
694:(
668:(
640:)
632:(
600:(
582:(
565:(
548:(
520:(
500:(
480:(
459:(
436:(
422:(
400:(
375:(
347:(
330:(
315:(
297:(
272:(
249:(
238:)
230:·
224:·
216:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
186:(
178:(
175:)
168:·
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.