Deletion of Civilian casualty ratio

Comment: This is one of the oddest AfD nominations I've ever seen. There is no such thing as a "POV topic", and if there were, it's hard to see how a ratio between two values could constitute one. The unsourced statement that most of the content here has been covered better in mysterious "relevant articles" is simply untrue. The assertion that this topic is "non-notable" is a  with no attempt at substantiation. And how is the world  relevant? I see no argument in this nomination that is well formed enough to serve as a starting point for a reasonable discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: This is a well discussed topic, and one of the most notable features in the changing history of war. That said, the article suffers from appalling ecentism|recentism, lack of worldwide scope, and poor organization; which is to say that the critiques of Anotherclown are true, just not grounds for deletion (if these problems were more serious, then the Article Incubator could be an option). For some places to start on an overall view see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: I don't see any |soap, and wonder where other people are finding it. Intriguing article. As for your concerns that "the article is mostly about Israel", I'd like to point out that ''|Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page.'' The other sections do need expanding by comparison, but that means they need to be expanded, not that the article needs to be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:ATD)