Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline

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 and cleanup. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Over 180 kilobytes of indiscriminate mirroring from sources. Anything worth keeping should be in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda instead, so no point to keep this. Derlay 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Some of the stuff can be deleted here, but this is a worthwhile and comprehensive timeline of all the claims and counterclaims. Such details do not belong on the main article, which is long enough already, but should be somewhere. Otherwise people will nickel-and-dime this stuff into the main article, as was happening before this article was created. csloat 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep per above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.184.204.75 (talk)
• Cleanup. The material in the article is mostly good, it just needs a little polishing.
• Delete, pointless. Any useful content should go to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge w/ Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda after cleanup; goot timeline.SkierRMH 09:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Terence Ong and per Derlay: "Anything worth keeping should be in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a well written survey of a valid topic, with citations in place. BTLizard 11:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean as per csloat. --Howrealisreal 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge - TWO HUNDRED AND NINTY TWO SOURCES. I don't particularly care for timeline articles, and this one is particularly badly formatted...but it does not fail any policies except, really, WP:NOT. If there is a way to clean this up, it would make an EXCELLENT research reference. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 16:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Its a good article, somewhat long but very interested. It would be quite hard to define this timeline from the other two articles. Needs tidied up, more links. scope_creep 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per all above. wikipediatrix 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Split I fear that this comment may start an argument I don't feel like participating in, but I don't see why this article combines these two topics. I would likely support a timeline focused on Saddaam or al-Qaeda, but why both in one? There is little connection between the two (this is the comment I fear will start an argument) besides both being recent targets of the United States. Combining them is too random, akin to any timeline revolving around to things that are very loosely related. --The Way 09:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the main problem with the article is organization. some information appears multiple times in the timeline. i agree it's a good reference tool and should just be cleaned up.Anthonymendoza 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not a good reference tool. Newspapers /cannot/ be considered reliable for such topics and the fact that one copies another is no proof of validity. Wait until the topic gets researched by unbiased scholars. Pavel Vozenilek 02:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - what are you talking about? There are numerous sources here (290 someone else counted), certainly many different things besides newspapers including government documents and so forth. More importantly, the topic has been researched by many unbiased scholars. Finally, none of that is a good reason for deletion even if your points were accurate. csloat 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep and Clean Way Up Much of this conspiracy advancing travesty of an article consists of nothing more than Conspiracy Theory, Disinfo and Neocon propaganda from disproven Conspiracy Crufters like Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie. (edit maybe 2 seperate timelines - the proven one and the Conspiracy Theorist's version) -F.A.A.F.A. 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree, but this page also includes all the refutations of the conspiracy theorists. If we remove this page, the "conspiracy crufters" will add the nonsense back into the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page piece by piece, and someone will need to re-research each bogus claim and include that info (and then once again that page will be twice as long as History of the world). IMHO, this page is not the best solution but it is an adequate one. csloat 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, there is over 100+ WP:RS and WP:V sources that are in this article creating the timeline, though there does appear to be items that can be removed to shrink it down. Maybe some that can be added to balance it as well. But overall I think it should stay. --NuclearZer0 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Clean up. Two words: "Loose Change." FourSix more words: "This has better documentation than that." Jinxmchue 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Obviously, I can't count (or should not add words after I count them in my head). Jinxmchue 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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.