Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, renaming or merging is at editors' discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No referenced material in this article. Human rights in Iraq is a better idea. DavidYork71 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, I have no problem with deletion as long as it's not seen as a sign that recreation (with material and sources) is not allowed... so:
  • Delete with allowed recreation gren グレン 07:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, it was added to before it was deleted. Good job. gren グレン 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite a notable and lengthy subject in British history, I must say I am surprised that this article is so neglected. I have added in a source for what material is there. Some also appears to have placed a tag on the article page saying that the neutrality of the article is disputed, but I find scant comment on the talk page. Seems fairly neutral to me. There is a wealth of material, on the net too, which could really turn this into a quite tremendous article. Cloveoil 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination makes the case for a merge more than a deletion. As for whether such a merge should be made, I believe a general article on human rights will inevitably focus on current events or Saddam's atrocities. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: (1) mixes history with very recent and fuzzy concept of human rights, (2) the only event mentioned (bombing) is likely part of supression of Kurdish autonomist movement during 1922-25, (3) the whole post-Ottoman Empire history of Iraq is history of uprisings and putches which Brits, when in control, tried to moderate. The article looks as prime example of making propaganda through original research - take a loaded word (human rights, fascism, terrorism, anti-xyz, ...) and mix it together with something author does not like. That the heavily biased media do it is understandable but WP should be based on different principles. (I used the book by Marion Farouk Sluglett & Peter Sluglett, Iraq since 1958 - From Revolution to Dictatorship, 2001, London to get overview of the era). Pavel Vozenilek 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article has promise for improvement. Jerry 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep It needs an article, but refrences could be added. Crested Penguin 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please rename if kept... "Pre-Saddam" just sounds wrong. --W.marsh 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep article is yet young and can be significantly expanded upon. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This article is a POV fork created back in May 2004. That's pretty long in the tooth. Chances of this page improving any time soon are close to zero, I'd say. --Folantin 16:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Human rights in Iraq which is a pointless stub designed to contain two, now three, articles that couldn't co-exist. At such time as topics e.g. the British occupation of Iraq gain sufficient information that they merit separate articles, then break out. But the top-level article should be an overview, not a dab page. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Human rights in Iraq as above. Manik Raina 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep due to work put in by author Manik Raina

*Merge: With Human rights in Iraq until sufficient information can be found that a separate article would be needed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: The editor has made efforts to correct the lack of sufficient information! Kudos Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete without prejudice to recreation As it stands, this is a pathetic POV stub. Any article that discusses human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq without mentioning the Simele massacre, for instance, is seriously under-researched. Somebody who actually knows something about the history of Iraq should rewrite this in a user sandbox then recreate the article when it's comprehensive. Until that ever happens, delete. --Folantin 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed vote to keep Since Noroton has made good faith efforts to improve this article, I believe it is salvageable. It still has large holes - the 1933 massacre of Assyrians by the Iraqi Army was a major event - but these can be plugged. --Folantin 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Human rights in Iraq- better title.--Sefringle 08:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The trouble with all these "merge" votes is merge with what? Human rights in Iraq is just a disambiguation page. --Folantin 10:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - virtually empty article of zero quality, completely unreferenced, nothing to merge of encyclopedic value. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: With Human rights in Iraq and don't make a separate article. No reason to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tone (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. This is not about human rights, this is about one specific massacre, which involves the more general issue of human rights only tangentially. Possibly merge to History of Iraq or some such. Sandstein 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC) -- Now keep after rewrite. Sandstein 22:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Funnily enough, as far as I can tell all the information on this page (except the mention of Arthur Harris and disagreement over the type of bombs used) is already in the main History of Iraq article...although that's virtually unreferenced too. I'm amazed just how inadequate the coverage of Iraqi history is on WP. --Folantin 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. This seems to just be a POV fork. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Human rights in Iraq

RaveenS 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep changed voteRaveenS 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing to merge TODavidYork71 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but allow recreation as the article is a poor POV stub and there is nothing to merge with at the moment. StuartDouglas 09:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep - editor has significantly improved this article and demonstrated a willingness to do further work on it. StuartDouglas 09:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - user has gone to great lengths to improve the article and seems to be extremely willing to improve it further. --pIrish 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's sad and pathetic that more effort has gone into this discussion than seems ever to have gone into the article. The subject is important and sourceable, the only question is whether Wikipedians have the interest and responsibility to treat the subject with the work and care it deserves. It is an important subject because it helps to give some perspective to the more important subject of Saddam Hussein's human rights record and the human rights situation that followed the invasion. I think we can do it, so I'm voting "Keep". I'll try to put some appropriate external links in the article, and maybe others can help improve it as well. Noroton 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)crossed out blathering Noroton 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I've tried to put my effort where my mouth is. I've added substantially to the article, but it's only a start and from only a couple of sources. I hope to make further improvements later. I think these additions (which I'll continue making) show that this article can be improved and the subject matter is substantial enough to support a good Wikipedia article. I haven't changed the British section at all yet. I hope everyone who voted already will reconsider in light of the changes, which, again, are just a start. Noroton 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I still believe that this article should be the topmost Human rights in Iraq article, because that article should not be a disambiguation page but an overview. It is not a judgement of the importance of this topic vis-a-vis the other two eras -- I just think those are obvious breakouts from a top-level article. Consider my vote "keep but rename" if you like. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm very open to a main article instead of a disambiguation page, but I don't have the time to work on it any time soon. A main article could have sections on various ethnic groups and how they've fared in terms of human rights, as well as a chronological overview. But I think the period article "pre-Saddam" has so much meat to it that we shouldn't cut it down to fit into a larger article.Noroton 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I didn't see what this was before, but it looks like it is starting to come along. I'd suggest that there is a lot of material for the pre-1920 period for this region as well. When time permits, a navigational template among the different articles would be useful, and ultimately these should be integrated into broader histories of the region. A Musing (formerly Sam) 02:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the massive improvement by Noroton (see diff). Well done! Any merge should be discussed on the talk page of one of the articles and should include comments from those editors directly involved in editing the articles. -- Black Falcon 20:09, 23 March 2007 (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.