Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war


 * 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. Mostly Rainy 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war
Original research which attempts to get around WP:NPOV policy, by consolidating a list of slogans from various sites, but few of which are verifiably sourced to actual usage. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", points out the following should not be included: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). " As an analogy, one might create a List of phrases which have been applied to President Bush, and claim that because a web site says "President Bush Sucks", and Iraqi TV said "Bush is an idiot" according to a BBC article, it's a legitimate article entry.

I am also nominating the following related page because it has substantially the same problem, and was modeled on the earlier list:
 * List of slogans and chants supporting immigration

 LeflymanTalk 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - pov original research masquerading as an encyclopedic list  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Geoffrey Spear 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sh76us 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, if that isn't an indiscrimate collection of information, I don't know what is. Recury 20:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all. -- Dcflyer 22:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'll copy my post on the subject from the talk page. Really the only thing I have to add is that I don't think the list is 'loosely associated.'  List of slogans, which used to exist as a page of its own, was loosely associated.  This is not; or at least, it is much less so than, say, List of United States military history events. Kalkin 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference with "List of United States military history events" is that it is a timeline of factual, historical events-- and hence, verifiable and neutral. Whereas this (and the similar article also listed for AfD) is a list of expressions promoted by particular group(s), collected from assorted Websites, with limited verifiability-- falling into the same category as "quotations" and "aphorisms". I'd just as soon nominate List of unflattering nicknames for Bill and Hillary Clinton which could likewise be sourced to a Website:.


 * Of similar note is the "What Wikipedia is Not" interdiction against "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".-- LeflymanTalk 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My earlier comments:
 * Wait. You say, "tagged for using Primary sources," and "If no non-primary references can be found, this article will need to go up for deletion." But WP:NOR, now that I look at it, says:
 * However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
 * So primary sources are fine. It seems like you're trying to say the various antiwar groups aren't reputable sources. Of course they aren't for a lot of issues - but it seems to me like they are regarding the chants that they use. Again, from WP:NOR:
 * A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.
 * Emphasis mine. This seems analogous to me. Kalkin 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, with a warning to leflyman about WP:BEANS regarding the redlink above. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not a fan of beans; gassy and all that. But if someone really did want to create those pages, I'd be more than happy to put them up for AfD. Red-links are, IMHO, perfectly legitimate ways to demonstrate the non-existence of a subject :) -- LeflymanTalk 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Scorpiondollprincess 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral but I will point out that I see no problem with the sourcing. Almost any group may be cited for information about themselves; that only becomes a problem when there is reason to think they are lying. A chant sheet is a perfectly good primary source and there is no general rule against primary sources. Unacceptable original research would be for our contributor to say "I heard someone chanting it". A few may be dubiously sourced, but some are very well sourced indeed: the BBC, the Daily Californian (one of the U.S.'s most prominent college newspapers), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 19 July 2006 (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.