Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq War Crimes


 * 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 Delete-- JForget 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War Crimes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced article that breaches WP:SOAP. The article also breaches the spirit of WP:BLP in that it makes a series of allegations against living people without adequate sourcing to back them up. Sources are cited but not in a manner that would enable them to be easily checked.

The article also appears to me to be original research by synthesis, where a series of claims, linked are then used to support a further unsourced claim. Mattinbgn\talk 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom foreverDEAD 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Bollocks from beginning to end. Nick mallory 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Gist of the article-- Australia attacked Iraq two days before the deadline set in the 2003 ultimatum. Author argues that Australian prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister may have committed war crimes and that they lied.  Sources are listed for statements, although author hasn't learned the and < /ref > form, quotes are taken from interviews.  Looks argumentative, POV and beyond cleanup Mandsford 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While a useful article could well be written on Iraq war crimes, it should be based on relevant tribunals rather than editors own opinions. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete- hoax, or nonsense. Either way.JJJ999 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely original research and synthesis, this article argues views that, as far as I can tell, are completely ridiculous and not worth of mention in this encyclopedia.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't for your original research, and this article contradicts that. ~  Sebi   [talk] 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research based soapboxing; even if it could be cleaned up and the opinions could be sourced (which I doubt could be done) it would still be essentially a POV fork of 2003 invasion of Iraq or similar. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to not be very credible and unlikely. At the most, if it had credible sources and was worth an inclusion on Wikipedia, I would say to merge somewhere in Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq. Kevin 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard delete - Unless an NPOV can be found, this can be in neither mainspace nor in userspace, so if the author chooses to userfy this, there it should be deleted forthwith as well per nom and per WP:SOAP.--WaltCip 03:53, 20 October 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.