Deletion of List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq

Comment: this sort of information is what "External links" sections are for. I too appreciate the hard work that's gone into this, but quite apart from its dubious encyclopaedic value, I'm concerned about the borderline  and  that seems to be going on by collating numbers from different sources. The article has no value as a research tool (ignoring the fact that this isn't what we're supposed to writing anyway; no self-respecting researcher would rely on someone else's data... especially on Wikipedia!), and its other suggested uses ("It also allows readers and researchers to investigate patterns in the type of tactics by insurgents and the coalition") would be better served by writing proper articles to cover these subjects. The heavy reliance on a single non-neutral source - ''anti''war.com - is also concerning
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:OR)

Comment: For the first years of the Iraq war Bremer and Sanchez did everything they could to obfuscate the number of Iraqi civilian casualties.  That pretty young American woman, who the US military claimed had been killed by an IED, went there to use Iraqi sources to try to document the scale of Iraqi civilian casualties.  It is a very important topic.  It is encyclopedic.  We have lots of other encyclopedic articles that have the same ratio of text and statistics.  Text articles have their place in an encyclopedia.  And articles that contain a higher proportion of statistics also have their place in an encyclopedia.  We have articles on Olympic records, and other lesser sports scores, which are similarly statistics rich.  This is not an argument .  This is the nature of an encyclopedia -- people want to look stuff up -- like casualty statistics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: per ,  and EyeSerene. Just a dumping or raw data that holds little to no encylcopedic value, and has OR concerns. Cheers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:LISTPURP)

Comment: A glob of statistics does not an encyclopedia article make. This is not a list as defined at Wikipedia:Lists#List articles: "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." That said,  does not apply here because it's just a bunch of stats without interpretation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)