Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 14:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

• Delete, this redirects to "alleged weapons of mass destruction" because I moved it there. Why start an article on something that doesn't exist? There's already an article about this, called Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, though I seriously question the neutrality of such an article with that title. Revolución 04:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Are you seeking to delete a redirect? Or are you thinking the redirected article should be deleted? The target article is plain awful, but is there a need for an article called Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Not really. A more natural redirect might be Iraq War and one of the subheads there about the build up. Geogre 12:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not quite sure what you want here, but keep one article at Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (not its present title) to be consistent with the naming of other pages. The fact that they were a figment of Anglo-American imagination aside. Now, instead of the usual 5 day rule, how about making it 45 minutes from doom? Dunc|☺ 12:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Tempted to say - 'delete - non-existent'. But given that the search was a matter of international interest, an NPOV article should certainly be kept somewhere (it deserves a whole article), so Keep (alleged is fine, although unnecessary, since no-one debates they existed at some point (after Rumsfeld sold them?) --Doc (?) 14:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) merge is better --Doc (?) 16:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI would vote merge with Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destuction but that article is already too long. The title should probably be Alleged Iraqi weapons of Mass Destruction. Falphin 17:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important topic in its own right, whether or not the weapons existed, or existed in the quantities alleged. The controvery was quite notable (and still is). No Account
• Keep surely there were some.  Grue  19:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As we can see from articles like Unicorn non-existence of the referent does not mean that the topic cannot be encyclopedic. --Tabor 19:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to merge with Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, where material may be utilized in a cleanup of that article. --Tabor 20:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, since I think the latter title better fits our style guide requirements. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Tabor. Notable topic likely to be of historical interest. Capitalistroadster 23:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Could not find article, but we have evidence that it exists. Somewhere. Merge. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, 9000 Kurds are quite sure of the use of weapons of mass destruction b the previous government. Klonimus 03:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually there's no conclusive evidence that the Iraqi gvt. gassed the Kurds, and even a number of U.S. government and military agencies have concluded based on chemical tests that Iran was actually the responsible party. See the Halabja poison gas attack article. Blackcats 11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, concur with Klonimus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. the wub (talk) 08:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and be very wary of POV in articles like this. Radiant_* 12:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and rewrite. That article title is POV. --Scimitar 14:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it does certainly need a cleanup. Blackcats 11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep: goofling 'Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction"' yields nearly 1.8 million hits. Considering the paucity of weapons found in relation to the extraordinary sum of weapons used to vanquish the overblown threat, 'alleged Iraqi WMD' is an apt title, and an entirely valid article subject. Ombudsman 16:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as previous comments ··gracefool |☺ 03:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alternatively, merge as above. Inherently POV and dishonest title. Kaibabsquirrel 05:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Merge anything suitable. Neutrality^talk 05:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful. Redirect might be useful. --Habap 18:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.