Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq War Scandal


 * 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   no consensus, default to keep.   Sandstein   22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Iraq_War_Scandal
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV Fork Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure that a lot of money was stolen in the course of the Iraq War. But the article, as it is, is just original research.  Each instance of theft is its own scandal.  There is no evidence of an over-all "Iraq War Scandal", any more than there is a "World War Two Scandal" or an "American Civil War Scandal". Northwestgnome (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Save Please save this article. Surprisingly, BBC a British News Agency, and not any US news agency, revealed this alleged scandal. BBC is a credible news agency and I'm sure there might be other scandals as well. If so, please make a cobined page of all the Iraq-war scams so as to give more information to the people rather than deleting information. This could turn out to be a major-scandal, and people need to know about it. --Bugnot (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep the article with the new title. --Bugnot (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has other sources as well including Guardian (UK) (Ref#7) as well as others. Moreover, US media's silence over this issue is questionable; otherwise this article would have many, many sources. Unfortunately, US media has diverted its attention and is also trying to divert people's attention over unimportant issues, rather than real ones that matter. $23 Billion is a sizeable amount to be just gobbled up, unaccounted for! Many small countries' economies combined couldn't equal that amount.
 * If you wish to add further sources, please do so.--Bugnot (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please improve the article rather than simply deleting it. It's an important issue which has received no mainstream-media coverage, and, thus, it needs people's attention. It's a big-scandal regarding taxpayers' money, so it needs a big-mention, not a small one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugnot (talk • contribs) 08:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments are only confirming what is wrong with what you have written in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to campaign for getting the facts out. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Northwestgnome. There isn't any evidence of an overriding "Iraq War Scandal". It might be worth a brief mention in Iraq War or elsewhere, but not its own article. --Hut 8.5 18:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to keep now scope has been redefined. Article still needs work. Hut 8.5 20:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and try to write a focused article with a better title, though I have no immediate suggestions. One may be become apparent as events develop and news stories accumulate .DGG (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep under the more appropriate title devised by TerrierFan, "Iraq War misappropriations" DGG (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The new title is certainly better, but still suggests that Misappropriations happened and this is accepted fact. I don't know if this is true, but it would certainly appear to be disputed.  This is why I think the article is a POV fork.  Its content certainly covers a notable issue, all be it in on-sided manner, but it belongs in a broader, neutral article such as Financial cost of the Iraq War or similar. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have moved the page to a better targeted title. This is well sourced and, under the new title, seems encyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep the new-titled one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.64.71 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)  — 117.201.64.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak Delete The article currently relies too much on a single secondary source, it needs more sources currently it seems to be more about a tv documentary then any event, title and lead are still poor, it should be descriptive and not attempt to 'coin' a new term. misappropriations is just too much of an innuendo for theft in my opinion. -- neon white talk 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Particular scandals may be notable. But I'm worried that this is a vehicle for POV attacks on the Iraq War. We wouldn't tolerate an article titled "Things Wrong with John McCain" either -- subject matter may well be notable, but move it into appropriate, balanced articles on an item-by-item basis. RayAYang (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a worthy topic for an article, but the current article is such a mess of POV that it would be better to delete it and start again. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not even sure the topic is that reasonable, as this implies there is some over arching connected set of misappropriations. Anyway, POV as it is, and rather soapy.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. The article does have WP:POV and WP:SOAP problems, but this is well-sourced information, and Wikipedia should carry it in some form. AndyJones (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It relies on a single source which isnt great for an article. If it was notable wouldn't there be more reporting on this? -- neon white talk 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Panorama + Dispatches + Guardian + BBC Website = a single source? Sorry, I don't understand your point at all. Can you clarify? AndyJones (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Panorama is by the BBC the website is about the show, it is the same source. The guardian article is about a different scandal altoghether and there lays the current major problem with the article. -- neon white talk 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:POV: The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. --117.201.64.88 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP The article doesn't rely on a single-source because there are other sources as well, look carefully. If you want to add more sources, add. But should $23 billion worth of taxpayer's money be doomed due to uninformed public? It needs more attention if mainstream-media might deliberately be not reporting this. This is not POV because it's a neutral article with credible external-sources, including BBC. Does BBC reports wrongly or for election campaigns?


 * Save Comment. Only the facts have been reported (thanks to Ground Zero and Hut 8.5) and there is no-speculation in this article as it's a concrete and well-sourced report. It's also verifiable because BBC, Guardian, and others are well-known and credible-sources. So what if no US media reports it? Who knows it might be deliberately being kept off public-view so as to save high public-figs. (including Prez.). It takes courage to report things of such-scale, and BBC had the courage. Watergate anyone? Iraqigate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugnot (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but -- sheesh! -- this article is a disaster. It might actually be better to userfy it for a while if there is an experienced editor willing to work on it unmolested for a bit. It should probably be stubbed and then very carefully grown. Anybody got time for this? Unfortunately, the enthusiastic editors who piled in to create this didn't know what they were doing and don't understand how to write neutral text. I've edited Bugnot's double "Save" vote to make the second one a comment, assuming that was a mere error. It's a bit distressing to see all the political arguments here. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine, where those arguments might be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I stubbed it down. Some of what was taken out might come back with proper context and sourcing and attribution, though much of it was COATRACK. --Abd (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Save and Comment Article updated and complete, though any edits by admins can still be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.65.66 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still looks like a complete mess to me, sorry. Can you explain what improvements you consider there have been since Abd stub-ed this? AndyJones (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2008 (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.