Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hīt during 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 merge/redirect. Not sure what exactly to merge as so much of the article lacks references. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hīt during the Iraq War[edit]

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

This article is an extreme POVFORK. It is not only unverified (the article has no sources), it is almost certainly unverifiable, since it relies on the memory of those involved in the conflict. It's filled with POV language, and is highly biased towards the side of the US military. If there is any verified information here, it can be added to Hīt. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I agree with the nom that this article has problems, the reason I say keep is I’m concerned the main article of Hīt will end up looking like this one, where too much of the article is based on the war. Since the subject is notable, it would be better if the article eventually looked more like this one. This article was split out of the main article because editors kept adding info about the war. Rather than delete, I recommend sending to the Incubator. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article incubator will be fine; note, however, that Hīt will not end up looking like this, because any unsourced information added to that article will be promptly removed (on my watchlist now, too). Furthermore, even sourced info can be included only to a limited extent, because it improperly makes several years in a city with at least 3000 years of history too important. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you will watch the Hit article. I'm still concerned that it will be subject to a western/recent bias as mentioned by Bahamut0013. IMHO, there is a high probability that good intentioned authors will add well sourced info mostly based on events from the Iraq War, which is what happened with Nawa-I-Barakzayi District from the Afghan War. I do realize that coverage on the area during the war probably represents the majority of info available on the subject. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hīt: While I respect FieldMarine's valid point on WP:UNDUE, I don't think this article as a stand-alone is up to snuff. We should merge over a bit about the war without unbalancing it in favor of a westernist and recentist bias. As the Hīt article grows, we can restore some of that removed war content in a more well-written and referenced manner. I'm not familiar with incubation, but unless somebody is going to actually take this project on, we might as well not bother. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some to Hīt. Incubate or ditch the rest. It's almost completely unreferenced, and do we really need that much detail (down to the battalion level)? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect - the vast majority of this content is not well cited, what is cited should be merged into the article about the town Hit. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2011 (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.