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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve[edit]

Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The alleged existence of ‘CJTF-OIR’ is unclear, undefined, and vaguely attested only by one source.
The only source now mentioned in the article as (vaguely) ‘defining’ the CJTF-OIR, is (present reference source 3) a bulletin of the U.S. Department of Defense, 21 April 2015, saying: “CJTF-OIR is the US-led Coalition’s response to ISIL” – which phrase is ambiguous:

1. Is that phrase meant literally, like an answer(response) in a conversation? But then the bulletin doesn’t tell us who exactly that ‘Coalition’ is, nor what ISIL said before this “response”. What is the meaning or encyclopedicalness of this response – consisting only of one, unknown noun: ‘CJTF-OIR’?
2. Or is the phrase meant metaphorically, meaning that some coalition is reacting on the existence of ISIL by saying (or doing or creating) ‘CJTF-OIR’? But then again: the bulletin doesn’t tell us who that ‘Coalition’ is. And: just saying that “CJTF-OIR” was said (or done or created) in “response” gives us no information about what that CJTF-OIR really is.
3. Wikipedia however seems to transform that (incomprehensible) ‘message’ of the U.S. Government into sheer fantasy in the current opening sentence of the article: “CJTF-OIR is the US-led Coalition”, which surely is not being said in ref source 3, as is falsely alleged now in the article (nor is that opening sentence corroborated with any other given source).

So: whether we’d take the above-given, allowed, interpretation (1) or (2), the phrase in ref source 3 does not give a clear definition of CJTF-OIR; and resort to fantasy, as in interpretation (3), is not what Wikipedia should do.
Having a Wiki article about a term (‘CJTF-OIR’) only because that term appears in some (vague) communiqués of the U.S. Department of Defense that don’t even succeed to clearly define and describe what CJTF-OIR is, and then, for lack of a clear and sourced defintion, fantasizing what we think CJTF-OIR is or might be or should be or can be, is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
The relevant information now in this article about 'BPC program' and '450 civilians killed' has been replaced by me into article Military intervention against ISIL. -- Corriebertus (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm a bit confused by the deletion rationale to be honest, is there some policy that you feel it doesn't meet / breeches? A very brief Google search yields thousands of results which attest to its existence, some of which are of course US Defense Department publications and but many others are to various news reports and other sources independent of the DoD, there are also a couple of mentions in books already [1] so I'd say it probably meets WP:GNG. As far as I can tell this is indeed the forward headquarters of the US and countries that are allied to it that are currently involved in the conflict in Iraq and Syria (and I added a ref which provided some details of the HQ and its make up) that co-ordinates the military aspects of their actions so it would seem to be a significant command (commanded by a Lieutenant General no less) in an ongoing major conflict involving most Western nations and as such looks like quite a viable topic to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Simple misunderstanding. --Sammy1339 (talk) :04:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countering the reasonings for 'keep' given by Anotherclown: Colleague Anotherclown is of the opinion, 25 August, that CJTF-OIR exists and is being reported about in (also) many non-US-Defense sources. Perhaps that is so but it is not recognizable in our article. I have ofcourse tried to find ‘good’ non-US-Government sources myself but could not find them.
And Anotherclown suggests, now here in this discussion. a new definition of CJTF-OIR. But still today, the definition in the article has not been ‘corrected’. I’d recommend him to repair the article – it is not my job to change an (up until now obviously false) article by copying opinions or rationales or arguments of other editors.
Anotherclown also asks me: is any Wikipedia policy being breeched or being not met? Well, as I clearly wrote, 17 August: the article is misleading the reader with a false reference, on the most vital point in the article. I really shouldn’t have to look up which policy is being breeched with false references to sources, should I? I've notified Mr Anotherclown of this reply. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The possible existence of errors of fact in the article isn't a valid reason to delete it (pls see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). As for it not being your job to fix them (to quote your response above), its not mine either though is it? We are all volunteers after all. You seem to have identified a problem with the definition of the subject which maybe others have not so perhaps you "fixing it" would indeed be the quickest solution and the one which would best serve the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Dis)qualifying the posting of Sammy1339 on this page(27Aug):
I propose to strike out (strike out) his posting completely, for the reason that he gives no argument for nor against deletion of the article in question, therefore his posting is to be considered off-topic on this page. His reaction: “Simple misunderstanding”, is only a noun coupled with an adjective. It is not a statement, not a recognizable argument for or against anything. Who is misunderstanding what or whom, Sammy1339? How do you know? What has that to do with the issue under debate, here?
We should avoid the misunderstanding that a deletion discussion is only a matter of counting how many people jot down ‘keep’ or ‘not keep’. This here is not like a general election in your home country, where you are free to just vote for the man/woman whose promises (or lies) (or haircut) you like best, without having to account for your vote to anybody. This here is an encyclopedia, and we decide only on the basis of rational arguments. (Therefore, such off-topic postings should best be either removed, or struck.)
I've notified Sammy1339 of my questions here to him. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the talk page guidelines, "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." So please do not strike out his comment. CarnivorousBunny^talk 17:44, 29 August 2015 (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.