Deletion of American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

Comment: I anticipated this would be a contentious nomination (it didn't take a genuis!), so would would like to thank all contributors so far for the good quality of the discussion. BobaFett85, the problem I have with your suggestion is that while it will solve the memorial and length issues, these aren't the only significant problems with the article. With the greatest respect, I feel you're suggesting turning it into an incident list because it will still permit you to include your own personal interpretation of the casualty figures. It's been pointed out before, but our inclusion criterion is "verifiability, '''not''' truth". I can understand why you want to do what you're doing, but you must understand that by taking figures from various places and using them to reach a different total to the http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf official one, you are (in the words of ) "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Even if we know or believe the published data is wrong, the  policy means it's all we have to go by and is all we're allowed to report. I appreciate that it's frustrating - many of us have had to deal with this when writing articles - but it's the way the Wikipedia community has decided we must work
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:V)

Comment: With all respect, that seems to be  and . Given that the article became the 3rd longest article on Wikipedia nine days after it was started its clear that little work actually has gone into it: the editor who created it has just lifted vast qualities of data from the single unreliable source it relies on (violating that site's copyright in the process) and converted it into a Wiki-friendly table using software
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:ITSUSEFUL)

Comment: I may have agreed with the user on certain points. I don't necessarily agree with . It is easy to quote all sorts of guidlines, like this one. I think it is an excellent argument to point out similarities. They are called models in scientific thinking
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: I concur with Nick. Removing the actual casualty list would get rid of the memorial issue, but the reason you seem to want this article to exist is as a vehicle for your advocacy of different casualty numbers to the official ones. What makes icasualties.org a more reliable source than the US DoD? You seem to be engaging in both original research and |synthesis; you may well be writing 'the truth', but our editorial policy is 'verifiability, not truth' (from ). These, too, should go... which leaves us with nothing other than what's already in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Incidentally, I take the same view on all such articles; this one was nominated because it's the one that was raised on the milhist talk page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:V)

Comment: per nominators reasons of  and the page doesn't seem to be anything more than a reproduction of the icasualties.org list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)