Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq
Delete. Not notable, and is trying to push a "popular opinion" (rather than describe what groups, organizations, and notable persons opinions are) through the use of a Wikipedia page. I would have no problem merging any information into existing articles, but most of it is already present in others. --Mrmiscellanious 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep --Boycottthecaf 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - inherent POV problems.--Nicodemus75 06:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep : frivolous AfD. Rama 06:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete We need to reduce this frivilous proliferation of articles.--Silverback 07:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherent PoV. Usrnme h8er 08:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPOV. Kappa 10:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand how this can be inherently POV.  Popular opinion can be gauged from a variety of polls and open sources.  Whether such opinion is pro- or anti-war doesn't have any bearing on the POV-ness of this article.  If anyone feels the article is POV then they should be editing, not AFD'ing, surely? Vizjim 10:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Med 11:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic seems fine to me.  The content might need some POV help, but that's a matter for plain old editing, not Afd.  Friday (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neeeds NPOVing and cleanup. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 17:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The invasion of Iraq is a very big topic and is appropriate dealt with in separate articles on different aspects. If it misrepresents American popular opinion, tinker appropriately with the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf melmac 19:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Remarkably, this is an article comprised almost entirely of facts. It cites its sources, does not try to interpret them, and does not try to spin them. The nominator is, I'm afraid, quite wrong. It does not push a "popular opinion", it reports the findings of those who measure popular opinion, which is a well understood phrase that does not mean that something is popular. -Splash talk 22:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -Lethe | Talk 01:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vizjim. Penelope D 01:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also: how in the world could this possibly be considered "not notable?" Penelope D 00:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. Notable topic. Shauri 00:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - a perfectly valid subject for an article. --A bit iffy 14:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ··gracefool |&#9786; 18:51, 25 September 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.