Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq

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. Walton ^Assistance! 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is original research, and a pointless list for an encyclopedia entry to have. In my opinion, its only purpose is to serve as a set of not-very-convincing "gotcha"s, trying to prove... something or other. Korny O'Near 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My question is: What is the point? The article is certainly well sourced. It shows that different people have stated that the war should be over quickly. Okay, that obviously isn't the case, but why the article? What is the need for an article that illustrates how politicians critically misjudged the time it would take to achieve the military objetives? They were wrong, big deal. People thought World War I would be over quickly also. No one created an article to point how wrong they were when it lasted four years. It seems like the whole point of this article is a gigantic "told you so". How completely elementary. --Cyrus Andiron 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research pushing a particular political point of view which has no place here. Nick mallory 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is OR Lurker 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the idea that this original research is attempting to justify is the Friedman (unit) (AfD discussion). Uncle G 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not original research. The question of timelines and benchmarks is a critical one to U.S. policy. An article about how people thought World War I would be over quickly would be informative and useful. And this isn't primarily about people saying the war would be over quickly; it's about significant policy makers and pundits setting benchmarks for judging the war's success. A number of those people have changed their support for the occupation as those benchmarks have passed; some have not. Without a record of such pronouncements, it's impossible to ascertain how people's positions have developed. This is useful (and encyclopedic, in the sense that it is of historical interest) no matter your opinion of the war. --User At Work 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is original research. It takes roughly thirty completely unrelated quotations from different people talking about periods of six months (although even that supposed commonality actually varies, and has been subject to interpolation in several cases) and synthesises the conclusion from them that they are using Freidman units, or are indeed related to one another in any way. It doesn't do any of the things that you claim it does. It says nothing at all about how people set benchmarks. It says nothing at all about how people's positions have changed. All that it is is, in your own words, a "record of pronouncements", which are not related to one another, and which have no sources supporting their synthesis into any kind of whole. Uncle G 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit heavily I think this article has potential . It is well sourced and could be renamed as something like Forecasts to the end of the Iraq War and reworked to the point where it documents notable people and their sourced statements as to when they think things in Iraq will return to "normal" I think it should be marked by time alone rather than interspuersed with things like the surge and the mosque bombing. Those things are just gratuitous nyah nyahs. MPS 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but edit, somewhat along the lines suggested by MPS, although IMO an accompaning timeline of significant events would help to give the various statements meanigful context. DES ^(talk) 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not exactly OR, but pointless. All it tells us is that, accorting to pundits, the next few months in the Iraq war are always the critical ones. So what. We can put that assertion, along with the sources into some appropriate article, but it certainly does not need a list. Sandstein 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well referenced POV pushing, and borderline original research. --Haemo 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is original research of the synthesis variety - albeit a very extended form, listing a number of different quotes to come up with an implied conclusion. If it's not that, then it's an arbitrary list (let's have a list of times people have predicted a recession?). -- Mithent 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve in formaldehyde. I remember there was an article about an Arctic sea monster that turned out to be a hoax and was enshrined in a BJAODN-type Wikipedia-space page. This article deserves a similar outcome. It's too hilarious (or tragic) to vanish from sight forever, but WP:OR is a concern. Yechiel Man 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we ought to have an article/essay called Wikipedia:formaldehyde that discusses the need for some articles and BJAODN to be preserved, just not in an encyclopedia. It would be like the Library of Congress for wikipedians. MPS 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Friedman (unit) and the first three sources amply demonstrate, the main point made by this article is not OR. Kla'quot 07:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the main point of the article? And are articles supposed to make points? Korny O'Near 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that U.S. officials have made multiple pronouncements that a critical period in Iraq has arrived or is imminent, often saying that critical period is six months long. This isn't a new observation, nor is it an opinion. The article does sets off my NPOV radar and I suspect a new title would help, but I can't put my finger on what would be needed to fix it. Kla'quot 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will accept it's not OR, but it does seem like SYN (a form of POV), if these sorts of articles were to be keepers, there'd be no end to "pronouncements of X in relation to Y", everything from band reunions and tours, ends of wars, romances, marriages, life as we know it, just look at the horoscope page (hey, they're in the NY Times a WP reliable source, right?) for pronouncements....Carlossuarez46 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G and Kla'quot Freepsbane 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a great article and obviously a lot of work went into it, but I worry that it is an OR collection according to Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe someone could republish it somewhere more appropriate? --Abnn 17:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "moving six months" is a much remarked-upon phenomena; when I saw the title I instantly knew what it was about. It is not original research to string together a bunch of facts in what amounts to a list. Very well sourced. Herostratus 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless rewritten (with appropriately specific sources) to reflect the actual, unstated subject — problems with the timeline — rather than simply citing data points and implying the intent. While I find this information fascinating and useful, I have to agree that's it's original research (i.e., synthesis). In theory, this article could be constructed from news articles and even books that have discussed the repeated, unsuccessful attempts to predict the timeline of the war, but that's not what the sources are actually providing. They are merely statements of timeframes, and the OR is in collecting them and making an implicit argument of their inaccuracies. I'd be surprised, however, if there aren't at least several reliable sources for the actual argument, so there may be some hope for this article (in some form) yet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that most of the citations come from three references (the FAIR list, the Washington Post list, and the recent Washington Post article) it's not predominantly original synthesis; rather it's taking established works on a particular subject and fleshing them out simply by following the original authors' intent, consistent with Wikipedia practice. --User At Work 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly under this name. This topic needs to be dealt with in a totally different manner IMO. The current page seems useless. Elrith 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously just exists to further a POV. Factually accurate, not original research exactly, but you could generate any number of superficially neutral and factually accurate lists that further some point or another, and have little other purpose. This just isn't what Wikipedia should be about... generating something that pulls out all the stops to look like an actual article but is really just a POV piece. --W.marsh 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.