Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Iraqi Freedom

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 of the debate was Redirected to 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Iraqi Freedom

delete. One does not need a separate artricle for American propaganda buzzword. There already is Iraq War. Mukadderat 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Iraq War2003 Invasion of Iraq. This page doesn't serve much of a purpose, it's basically a dicdef of the real article. Grandmasterka 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Soft redirect here does the trick, as it points users to the war and the initial invasion. Would prefer hard redirect over a delete, though. Redirect per below. youngamerican (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand -- there are over 200 articles linking to this. It is the given name of a specific military operation, not just a "buzzword". —ERcheck @ 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2003 invasion of Iraq: Based on Kirill Lokshin comments on naming conventions for military operations (below), I change my vote to "Redirect" —ERcheck @ 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to wherever the actual article is. This is standard for operational codenames; see, for example, Operation Overlord and Battle of Normandy. Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kirill.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs). @02:21, April 4, 2006
• Redirect and add reference to operation name to main article. Monicasdude 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. BryanG 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect There's no such thing as a “soft redirect”. The propaganda like name used by the Whitehouse should be discussed, but this article dose not discus it in a meaningful way. BTW Operation Cobra II was the pentagon code name for the 2003 invasion [1]. Seano1 02:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've come to agree with your logic on the fate of this article, but soft redirects do exist sometimes, see Wikipedia:Soft redirect. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:  CENTCOM uses the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom". —ERcheck @ 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per kirill, although I personally believe that since it's the undisputable name of the operation, it deserves it's own page. But delete? Not a chance. American propaganda buzzword? How about official name of the military operation. I think the nominator needs to review his own biases. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment BTW: Seano1: you're incorrect. Operation Iraqi Freedom was the official name of the invasion. I'm acutely aware of this: sitting above my monitor is a certificate of service from the commander of the US 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade thanking me for service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Furthermore my DD214 and all of my pay stubs are coded Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Noble Eagle. Though you do provide a link, your reasoning is faulty. OIF was the name of the invasion operation. Cobra II was, according to Naylor, a "codeword" for the act of deposing Saddam from his regime. There is a difference between the operational invasion, and the goal of regime change: they were two different things, though closely related. Just thought I'd clarify this. This last part is not directed at anyone here, but I'm really getting sick of ignorant people claiming the name OIF is propaganda, to justify their own biases against the war. Whether you think it's right or wrong, the name is factually and undisputedly official: thus it's part of history. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Bla-bla Noble American Eagle liberated Vietnam, Afghanistan with the help of Osama bin Laden, Haiti (or was it Taiti?) the whole world loves you. When you will liberate Cuba, your real pain in the ass? Mukadderat 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Your personal attacks are weak. If you are going to violate the WP:NPA at least make it worthwhile and say something clever.--Looper5920 01:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Strike last comment. I read that wrong. You were refering to cuba as the pain in the ass. That being said, take your personal politics somewhere else. They do not belong here.--Looper5920 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Why didn't you tell this a day ago to Noble Eagle SWATJester who is "really getting sick" of people who don't like American propaganda? Mukadderat 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Wah--Looper5920 06:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Kirill and others. The "officialness" of the name shouldn't force us to privilege it. Combatants in a war don't get to dictate to the international community how a war is going to be named by posterity. A redirect and appropriate mentioning in the main article serves it just fine. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Also, I'd like to comment that some activists started this entire article just to support their own political agenda, or at least that's why some are getting involved. [2] 72.66.30.75 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kirill and others. The fact that this is being voted on is a joke in itself.--Looper5920 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Carlossuarez46 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. MartinMcCann 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 01:42, 8 April 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.