Deletion of List of Insurgents killed in Iraq

Comment: on the basis that the topic is notable as shown by coverage in the mainstream news media, thus satisfying  and that the sources are official reports and  articles, satisfying . I do not believe that adding up claims by troop commanders constitutes original research or synthesis. That said, the numbers may not be completely accurate since claims of enemy killed are often estimates, absent actual body counts, and in a war against nonuniformed opponents any dead civilian may be pronounced an insurgent, even if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It appears that 3 or four editors have taken it upon themselves to maintain the daily updates. If they had done for a while and then quit, the complaint about the need for updates would have more import
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:A)

Comment: with the strong suggestion to add content different than mere numbers in it. Keep in mind 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)

Comment: The case for deletion has not been made in my view: (1) if the necessity of daily updating was a valid basis to delete an article, all current events articles are liable to deletion; and (2) the sheer number of external links is no reason to delete if 400 is enough, perhaps someone will nominate Deaths in January 2007 which has 413 of them. I am still trying to figue out whther this is really useful in any meaningful sense or whether WP will be the sole repository of this information (contrast this list with the various "executed people" lists, maintained all over the place, and at WP) which would indicate its nonusefulness or possibly a  problem
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT)

Comment: It could have a lot more context; maybe some internal links to other articles - but it's much better sourced than a lot of Wikipedia articles. It does not appear to violate any policies or guidelines, and it ''is'' useful (and don't tell me to read  - some people will whenever the word useful is used, though "arguments to avoid" only applies when that amounts to the core of the argument - not the case here). I don't see how this is a linkfarm. No valid reason for deletion is presented - indeed, the deletion arguments seem to boil down to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)