Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actual 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. &rarr;Raul654 07:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actual effects of invading Iraq
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 shitty mess it has been up till now --Doc (?) 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please also give your assessment at the duplicate article Predicted effects of invading Iraq, which is actually less up to date focusing on unsourced POV items, and is up for vfd at Votes for deletion/Predicted effects of invading Iraq.


 * Delete.The article takes newsworthy events and has to interpret them in its own way to reach the conclusions it does, and thus is a mixture of POV and original research and irredemably so. This article should be remade in the future when the "actual" effects have come to be agreed by the expert community. Try again in about 2050. -Splash 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't see any way to make this article not smell of POV, not to mention original research -Satori 23:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete (along with its sister article, Predicted effects of invading Iraq). I'm sure the contents are covered elsewhere, and the format is irredeemably unencylopedic, I think. The only iota of value is as a brainstorm for checking these issues are covered in the appropriate articles. Which in fact leads to the suggestion of maybe moving it to a relevant talk page or wikiproject page (see Category:2003 Iraq conflict; funnily enough there's a WikiProject Iran but not WikiProject Iraq). Rd232 23:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsustainable article that will rapidly degenerate into a POV-battlefield. Actual subliminally indicates that all other findings of such effects are untruthful, adding to POV problems. -Hmib 00:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very well researched article. Wikipedia seldom covers historical events so well.  The writers are to be commended. One point: the claims researched should be sourced, and the sources should be predictions made before and during the invasion. --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seldom covers historical events with so many question marks. The reason there are so many is because the actual effects simply aren't known yet, and the only way one can claim to know what they are is to interpret a set of facts relating to one of the most unstable situations in the world. There is no reason why this could not be recreated in 10-15 years' time. -Splash 02:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the question marks bother you, edit the article to replace them with the word "uncertain" or a phrase such as "not yet known". Or comment out the predictions for which the outcome is still uncertain; they can be added back. The other results are useful where the prediction can be sourced (as I said above) and the outcome is known for a fact (such as for instance the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the elimination of the threat of future Iraqi used of weapons of mass destruction, etc). It's close to OR but I think it can be done in a neutral way from sources and should be allowed to continue with that objective in mind. --Tony Sidaway Talk  08:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as needed into appropriate target pages; this title is unacceptable and the format should also be abandoned. If a page of this nature is to be kept intact, it needs major reworking, but there seems to be plenty of good information here. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:17, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking over the related articles, there doesn't appear to be any extra info outstanding here. That leaves the case for this article to rest on its presentation of information, which is actively unhelpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely original research. Nandesuka 05:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the article is beyond saving, having started from a hopelessly POV stance. bokkibear 12:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The worthwhile material is already better covered elsewhere. - SimonP 16:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep (and actually put some work into it!) It is pretty bad as it is, but the idea of the article, in correspondance to the predicted effects... article, is exactly to be a scorecard: to record all of the predictions and compare them with what actually happened. Provided one is thorough and honest about what was predicted (and doesn't revise it retrogressively to fit a conclusion), and these predictions are objective, onecan also be objective about the actual effects.  if the result strongly favors a given conclusion, that is no proof that there was any POV involved.  To think it would be would be employing the "gray fallacy" - the fallacy that nothing is ever black and white but is always a shade of gray almost exactly between the two.  There is absolutely nothing that garauntees this.  It is a specail case of "assuming the conclusion" - which is exactly what one wants to avoid when trying to achieve NPOV. And no, the worthwhile material is not already better covered elsewhere.


 * the corresponding page, "predicted effects..." already faced a vfd about a year ago on the basis of things being "unattributed opinions", but it passed because the authors provided sources, thus attributing the predictions. To say that the information in this article is unattributed is factually incorrect, besides being clearly intended to persuade rather than reason (clearly, in that it is false.  and also in light of the following).  The fundamental question, whoever, is whether the predictions accurately and proportionally represent the spectrum of predictions made in support of or opposition to the war, during the time prior to the war.  The thorough attribution in this article (at the bottom, rather than mixed in) is simply one means of approaching that goal.  And certainly there is much further to go; much work to be done on this article.  In any case, the point of this article is to be just that: a snapshot of the various predictions concerning the iraq war prior to the war - for the sake of history and reflection.  Remember, the coming generations are not going to have experienced the iraq war and the political turmoil surrounding it - they're not going to know all of those things that both the people voting "keep" and the people voting "delete" do, unless we make a record of that information here.   That is the point of an encyclopdia, that is the point of academic literature in general.  those voting "delete" are encouraged to "then fix it", so that future generations may have the knowledge that they, and we all collectively, do, but would otherwise be lost to them. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. C'mon... Just look at the title. / Peter Isotalo 02:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The title is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The issues can be better covered in articles set up on a more conventional basis. Osomec 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NPOV and riddled with original research in its basic conception. DGaw 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * By "NPOV" I assume you mean POV, however, this cannot be so "in its basic conception", unless the subject matter is inherently POV, and clearly "effects of invading iraq" isn't pov insofar as there certainly are effects of invading iraq. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not certain how this existed for the last 2 plus years, but I assume POVers. It is POV by definition: it is entirely an original assessment.  --Noitall 20:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is POV and original research. Carioca 21:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Completely POV and inaccurate original research.     ( ! | ? | * ) 23:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator.--nixie 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every event in history has had effects, but this is the only one I know of that requires a separate Wikipedia entry for them. Korny O'Near 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POVBAR.  Grue   06:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps merging with Predicted effects of invading Iraq. Rama 15:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. How did such a horrible thing manage to remain listed for so long? Kudos to Doc for the flag. Dottore So 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is crap.  POV issues aside, none of the points are sourced and a lot of the claims are flat out inaccurate.--csloat 22:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, awful. Babajobu 08:04, 19 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.