Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq (2nd nomination)


 * 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, per WP:SYN and WP:NOT. Sean William @ 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a procedural nomination. I closed the previous AfD as a Delete, but per the request of User at Work I have restored the article and reopened this AfD to gauge fuller consensus. I have no opinion. Walton Assistance! 16:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per UaW & others last time. I seem to detect POV in some of the objections raised then. Johnbod 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:NOT, under #9 (weakly fits to me). --Whsitchy 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is kept, rename please. --Whsitchy 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons mentioned before. Actually, now that it's a "timeline", instead of a "list", with that oh-so-helpful "end date" column (as if the phrase "the next six months" has ever meant the next six months, exactly), it's even more obviously non-encyclopedic. Korny O&#39;Near 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What does "the next six months" mean, then? Would the article be improved by not having the end date column? --User At Work 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this was synthesis when it was part of Friedman (unit), and it remains rather synthetic. I can see some ways this could be made more acceptable, but ultimately I just don't think this is a Wikipedia-suitable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How could it be made more acceptable? --User At Work 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per concerns above and the previous AfD. Fails WP as well as WP:SYN.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons it was deleted first time around! Nick mallory 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons it was deleted the first time. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and expand. An article on Iraq War projections could report the facts on who has said what when about the future of the war.  To select out the "critical period" quotations, however, is POV, because the only reason for the selection is to point out that many supporters of the war are unwilling to face reality.  A more general article, reporting on all projections made about the war, wouldn't be subject to that objection. JamesMLane t c 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see that working, though it's not the case that "the only reason for the selection is to point out that many supporters of the war are unwilling to face reality". Many of the people whose quotations are on that list, such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, John Warner, and Joe Biden, changed their stance on the occupation after their stated critical period passed; if someone wanted, they could use this article to point out that many supporters of the war are willing to "face reality", whatever that means. There are many reasons for the existence of the list, and many ways a reader could use the list to improve their understanding of the war. The thing to recognize about the article is that it is not an original concept to focus on just these quotations. It's a phenomenon identified and researched by FAIR and the Washington Post, among others, not originated on Wikipedia. --User At Work 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete for the reasons it was deleted in the first place. Risker 05:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename As said before, the original synthesis complaint seems inaccurate; several outside sources have already compiled similar lists, which are being used as sources for the article. Perhaps the quotations should be merged into Occupation of Iraq timeline, which also contains many quotations, but that would defeat the purpose of having all the related quotations in a single entry. Is the problem the tabular format? Is it the continuing problem of what Wikipedia should be calling the Iraq occupation? There should be a way to resolve the concerns of other users. The content itself is certainly relevant, interesting, and above all useful to understanding the general topic. My primary motivation in adding contributions to Wikipedia is whether the information provides information that allows for greater understanding and knowledge; I've tried very hard to do that with Jack Abramoff, another topic with vast amounts of information that benefits from multiple organizing mechanisms. --User At Work 16:01, 29 May 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.