Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddam Hussein – United States relations


 * 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   merge to Iraq – United States relations. Some material may be suitable for Saddam Hussein as well. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein – United States relations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I propose to either delete this page or redirect to Iraq – United States relations. I tried to redirect, on the grounds that previously several editors have pointed out problems with the article and the article location and proposed to either merge or redirect to Iraq-United States relations. A merge tag was on the article for almost a year, with one editor promising on the talk page to move some of the information from this article to the Iraq-United States article. Nothing has really happened in almost a year, except that the same editor removed the merge tag a few weeks ago. There seems to be a rough consensus for a merge or redirect, if one takes into account that consensus is decided by better arguments, and not by a majority vote (several editors who opposed a merge did not explain their reasoning).

So much for the editing history of the article. The reasons why this article should be deleted or redirected are as follows: 1. There is already an article that deals with the joint history of the US and Iraq at Iraq – United States relations. Countries have relations, but not countries and individuals. We do not have and should not have articles on Margaret Thatcher-United States relations or Sese Mobutu-United States relations.

2. This article has some serious POV problems as is already clear from the first introductory sentence, which establishes as fact what is in reality controversial. Some sources are problematic (UPI is not a reliable source by any standards - and it is the only source for the claims that Hussein was backed by the CIA around 1960) and some sources are quoted selectively. Even more problematic is the ommission of viewpoints that are contrary. It is instructive to look at this source (convenience link to a Reuters article), where it is said that "But many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, say there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the 1960s." Little of that can be found in this article. It is telling that so many sources are of a shoddy quality, or are openly partisan, when it fact many academic books and articles have been written about US-Iraqi relations and Saddam Hussein. In the end there is little to nothing that should be kept as it is, making a merge not a good option. Pantherskin (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Short summary: 1. Not a viable topic as the proper topic would be Iraq – United States relations, which already exists. 2. Merge is not an option due to the low quality of the article and POV and sourcing problems. Pantherskin (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - There is enough reliably sourced information on this article not present on the other. This information should first be transferred, not deleted completely, which is what the nominator repeatedly tried to do. Dynablaster (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere This is as true a violation of WP:NPOV as I've ever seen-- basically, a retelling of the events described in the Saddam Hussein article, but from America's point of view. No matter how neutral a tone the article is written in, every step of the way on the story of Saddam, the question "What did that mean to the United States?" is asked and answered.  I'm reluctant to say delete on a copiously researched article, and someone has put a lot of work into this.  On the other hand, I think much of it could be merged into Saddam Hussein in a shortened form.  I would say the same for "Fidel Castro - USSR relations" or "Adolf Hitler - Great Britain relations" or "Saddam Hussein - Iran relations".  All of history's stories could be retold from another point of view, but that doesn't mean that we should have another article from a different perspective.   Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - a merge tag was on this article for almost a year, and nothing happened despite a promise by an interested party that material will be transfered. In any case most of the information is already in the Iraq – United States relations and the Saddam Hussein article, so nothing is lost apart from the more egregious violations of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Pantherskin (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No one wants to merge it apparently, and we cannot keep an article like this around forever.  JBsupreme (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge or even Rename - there's a goodish bit of reliably sourced info here that it would be a shame to lose. Agree with the nom's first point "Countries have relations, but not countries and individuals", but if you were to regard "Saddam Hussein – United States relations" as a sort of shorthand for "relations between the US and Iraq during the period of Saddam's presidency" then it would be useful as a stand alone main article split off from the larger Iraq – United States relations (which admittedly isn't very large at the moment, but there's some potential for growth there I'd say).  As Wikipedia grows I'd hope to see all bilateral relations articles split off like this, perhaps something along Library of Congress cataloguing lines. Declan Clam (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was the first editor to suggest that Saddam Hussein – United States relations and Iraq – United States relations should be merged, but no editor has put efforts to merge the two articles (including myself, lazy me). And IMO, if no efforts are put to merge, then lets just keep the two articles separate. Imad marie (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Iraq-United States relations. Some of the content also belongs in Saddam Hussain. WP:Preserve the referenced content. Edison (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be important if editors can point out which information is sourced and could potentially be merged. I am saying this because most of the information is not sourced, even if at first glance it looks like there is a proper reference. It starts with the first paragraph, which is sourced to an op-ed in the Guardian, but then the op-ed does not say anything about the role of Saddam Hussein in the assasination attempt on Quassim. Then we have several paragraphs sourced to United Press International, the media outlet of the Unification Church, a more than controversial sect. Even if the article used as a source is taken as reliable it is not properly cited - in the UPI article claims are attributed to their usually anonymous source, in the Wikipedia article claims by individuals are suddenly historical facts. It goes on. In the next day I will clean up the article and delete everything that is not properly source. We will then see what can be merged and what not. Pantherskin (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Information regarding the pre- and post-Kuwait invasion is worthy of inclusion. It explains why Iraq-US relations were severed and at which time. All reliably sourced. Also, both UPI and The Washington Times are media outlets of News World Communications, owed by Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church. What is your objection exactly? Dynablaster (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UPI is not a reliable source, certainly not a good source for the exceptional claims made in the article. This has already been pointed out by other editors in the past, but nothing has happened to back up the exceptional claims with reliable sources. Regarding the pre-and post Kuwait invasion, similar information can be found in the Saddam Hussein and Iraq – United States relations, and the corresponding sections there do not read like editorials and do not give more space to some individual authors and their claims than their fringe views would deserve. Little reason to merge it, except if someone would be willing to rewrite and amend the corresponding sections - but that is not exactly a merge. Last time I checked WP:RS and WP:NPOV were policies, and for good reasons anything that violates these policies should be rigorously deleted. Pantherskin (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Object to deletion. And support merge only if efforts are made not to delete the relevant sourced material in the article. Imad marie (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, an order to merge would give you, or any other interested editor, a reasonable opportunity to transfer relevant information to another article. In addition, if that's the outcome, it makes it less likely that an addition would be removed by a subsequent editor.  Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * merge with parent articles. This one has the potential to be a dumping ground for POV. WVBluefield (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2009 (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.