Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predicted effects of invading Iraq

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 Delete. Redwolf24 05:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Predicted effects of invading Iraq

The duplicate article Actual effects of invading Iraq, which is actually better written and more up to date, is up for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Actual effects of invading Iraq. I am going to take the liberty of using Doc's words over there over here because I cannot say them better (except to delete one minor word :) ). If Doc objects, his comments can be removed or expanded. --Noitall 04:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Before anyone objects, I know cleanup candidates shouldn't be brought here, but I'm being bold. I think this article is beyond cleanup and we should just put it out of its pathetic miserable existence. As it stands, it isn't an assessment of the effects of invasion; it is a POV scorecard on whether the alleged objectives have been met. The subject is covered elsewhere- whatever your view on Iraq, consider whether this article can ever be anything other than the mess it has been up till now --Doc (?) 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" - although I find the censorship of my language a little strange --Doc (?) 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is even worse in "predicting" a laundry list of POV items. There are no sources and no quotes from valid sources.

• Delete.--Noitall 04:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable evidence provided. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystal ball and POV-fodder. Neurophyre 06:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Having been written during the events themselves make this article both messy and highly interesting and precious. Rama 06:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is not the way to divide up a subject. Bhoeble 14:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dottore So 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete crystal-balling. Needs to be combined with that other article in about 15 years time.-Splash 21:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any real information of note on this page could (and should) be placed somewhere else. Korny O'Near 21:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete or rewite with a lot more nuance. But is anyone up for Predicted effects of invading Iran while we're at it?? --Doc (?) 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • No, but I could probably knock something up on Predicted effects of invading the United Kingdom. -Splash 22:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Most of these predictions are easily verifiable (some are sourced already, many are not). I'll undertake a cleanup on this article, which is probably the only encyclopedic article bringing together just about all of the predictions made by both advocates and opponents of the invasion prior to the event. In short, this is the kind of thing that would not exist but for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• You may be right on that. Let's see how the cleanup goes. -Splash 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep On second thoughts, I'm willing to go with Tony on this. Predictions were made - thus (sourced) predictions can be recorded. My provision is, it should be nuanced - and not look like - 'here is what the 'pro' (all) predicted and here the 'anti' (all) said' --Doc (?) 23:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary. The relevant points could be (are?) summarized in an intro paragraph in 2003 Iraq War article. There's no real reason for having such a list other than for supporting revisionist finger pointing at a later date. --Paul 20:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Needs cleaning up, not deletion. The 2003 Iraq War polarised views across the planet (including between friends and families). The article reflects the cross section of views expressed at many dinner tables over the 2003 period. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Clean up and reword so it reads from a NPOV and/or list more citings of sources --nirvana2013 16:38, 20 August 2005 (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.