Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Report to the Inspector General into Mobile Telecommunications Licenses in 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 Speedy delete as attack page. I cannot believe this was allowed to stand for so long. That the material might be suitable for an article here is not out of the question; that it can be allowed in that form certainly is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report to the Inspector General into Mobile Telecommunications Licenses in Iraq[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article currently reads like an attack page and I do not believe it meets WP:GNG. It was tagged in August 2014 for not being written in an encyclopedic tone but, most problematically, it uses original research (especially WP:SYNTHESIS) to make personal and professional claims about Jack Shaw. I would like to be clear that I am working as a consultant to Mr. Shaw and therefore have a COI with this article topic. For this reason, I hope impartial editors can review this article and decide on the best course of action. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT Oh wow. I see a lot of issues with this. The lead is based on a MotherJones article and a book someone wrote. The MotherJones article doesn't seem to support many of the article's claims. The book is used as a reference for claims throughout the article, represented as undisputed fact. Books aren't reliable sources, even Then Wikileaks is used as a reference. All in all, this article is mostly original research. Other sources include democraticunderground.com, illinoispaytoplay.com, etc. If this article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite, every section is riddled with non-neutral language, and an article like this would only be statable as fact had there been a conviction or an admittal of guilt. I am having trouble finding one, but am of course open to reconsidering if one is presented. Many revisions would also meet the grounds for WP:CRD #2 as they attack a WP:BLP. Really, the easiest way to get a useful article would be to just 'Blow it up and start over', assuming this can pass notability guidelines. ― Padenton|✉ 00:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is one of the worst examples of non-neutral editing that I've seen and it's rife with BLP violations. As far as I can tell, coverage in reliable sources is sparse, suggesting that the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Since there is no NPOV version to revert to, I have nominated the article for [[WP:CSD#G10|]] deletion.- Mr X 04:17, 13 May 2015 (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.