Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004

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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004

Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is about a part of a war that already has its own page. CJ King 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge per nom. Unless there is something particularly noteworthy about any particular timeframe I see little value in breaking it out into many bits of little worth. Akihabara 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think that it should stick because it shows the inital uprising of the Mahdy army and their takeover of the south and the fight for Anbar that was in the same time frame, the fight for Fallujah, Ramadi, Husaybah and other cities in the psring of that year. I draw paralels with the Tet offensive so I think like the Vietnam war article has the Tet offensive Iraq should have this. The spring fighting of 2004 had a substantial inpact on the perspectiv of the war like Tet did. Like Tet it was an uprising of insurgents all over the country at the same time. This article is not about a war but a series of operations, like Tet, in a war that were interconected and had a sustantial incpact on the whole perspective of the war. This is just one battle of the war not an article about the war like CJ said.Top Gun 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep US Civil War and World War I and World War II are broken into articles on individual battles and campaigns. In many cases the popular name of the campaign changed over time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was an important phase of the overall Iraq War. It illustrated the strength of the Mahdi Army and showed how the war had changed from the conventionally perceived US vs Sunni insurgents to a more complicated US vs Shia militia and US vs Sunni insurgents and Shia militia vs Sunni insurgents. The only thing that should be considered in the future is not whether to keep this article, but whether the name is appropriate--it is a little unwieldy, but as the war progresses a better name might come up for this phase. Also, the Iraq war article needs more distinctions like this--for a 4 year war, there's little in the way of officially recognized campaigns beyond the various phases of invasion, occupation, insurgency, civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publicus (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

• Strong Keep It shows how the separate battles during that period were connected with the religious tensions, the rise of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army and a departure from the idea of battling against a foreign insurgency, and how the separate battles were connected with each other. It gives a summary and a bit of perspective on the Spring campaign as a whole, and I feel that it is a valuable article. Defenestrating Monday 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—the scope of the article is appropriate (the period it covers is a distinct and important phase of the war) and it could not possibly fit entirely into Iraq War. If it overlaps much with other articles, they should be merged to an article dealing chiefly with this topic, but the reason given in the nomination is unsound. —xyzzy_n 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep We should definately keep this article. as Defenestrating Monday says it shows how all the battles of this time are linked together, & I feel this article gives a clear explanation for how & why events occured the way they did with a level of detail often lacking in other articles. Also I feel this article, unlike some others, allow you to picture events from the viewpoint of the insurgents, particulaly that of the Shi'as under Sadr. This article gives us a valuable account of these events & thus is more then worthy of being kept by this encyclopedia. Redfox24 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Publicus; it would be a error to remove the article focused on what may have been the turning point in the current war.Freepsbane 03:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I have changed my mind and would really like this AfD to close.--CJ King 04:17, 14 January 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.