Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qa Qaa controversy timeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Al Qa Qaa controversy timeline was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to keep this article (11 votes for 'keep' vs 2 for 'delete'; 2 'merge', 1 'redirect'). Lupo 07:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Al Qa Qaa controversy timeline[edit]

This page should be deleted. It is purely politically motivated. It has no other pages' linking to it, mostly because there are no pages about the Al Qa Qaa facility, or what part it does or does not play in the current conflict in Iraq. It is of purely transitory interest. While I agree that places that are in the news should have articles, this is not the same as saying that everything in the news should have an entry. So, Al Qa Qaa yes. A "controversy" that is currently exercising bloggers no, or at least only as a footnote.Dr Zen 06:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea." (wikipedia guidelines) - Sbwoodside 07:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does not matter what the motivation for the page's creation was, so long as the page itself is NPOV. The fact that there are no pages linking to this page merely indicates it's a new article, and in any case the absence of linking pages or other pages on related themes is far from being a general criterion for deletion. I find it arguable at best whether this is an issue of only transitory interest, and Dr Zen's suggestion that it is only 'a "controversy" exercising bloggers' leads me to wonder whether this vote for deletion was politically motivated. --Saforrest 12:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Erm. Okay, I confess it. I am Scott McLellan. The page itself is not NPOV. I've explained why I think that. I share the political standpoint of the article, as it happens, but just as I would happily write in POVs on other subjects that do not match mine, I'll point out where someone who shares my beliefs is pushing them.Dr Zen 06:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • That's fine. In order to argue for this article's deletion, however, it is not sufficient to show that the article is currently POV, but that it is inherently and unredeemably POV, i.e. that no change to the article short of its deletion is sufficient to remove the POV. I will not argue about whether the article in its current incarnation is NPOV, but I don't think you can convince me that it is inherently POV. --Saforrest 22:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. NeoJustin 03:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I am becoming somewhat disturbed at the level of deletionism occuring for seemingly worthy articles. There little, if any, harm in keeping interesting and esoteric material. If someone does not want to know about this topic then they will not be subjected to it, yet it will be here for people who do want to know about it.--ShaunMacPherson 18:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comments: IMO, the non-existence of the article about the Al Qa Qaa facility should not be taken into account when considering the existence of this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comments That's absolutely ridiculous! The timeline is about something that is itself not notable enough to have an article that happened in a place that itself is not considered notable enough to have an article (hey, at least I've spurred the writing of that article) and you don't think that has anything to do with it? As for the "in the news" thing, this is an entirely spurious article. My aunt Sally was in the news last week but she doesn't merit an article on that basis. This is to twist words that were well meant and ignore their spirit. The "topic" could be "explosives" or "weapons proliferation" or some such, but this timeline concerns itself solely with the topic of "embarrassing the Bush administration", a passing sport, great fun for its players, but hardly the stuff of the ages.Dr Zen 08:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I never said that Al Qa Qaa should not have its own article. It probably should. As this is about an event, however, the article does not require an article about Al Qa Qaa. Also, your Aunt Sally would definitely be placed on VfD because she is not notable. IMO this event is a significant event, so these things are not comparable. Incidently, its your POV that the timeline concerns itself with embarrassing the Bush administration. If you think that facts are incorrect, then please feel free to improve the article. If you feel the article is POV, then modify it to show how the event does not embarrass George Bush & Co. I certainly won't stop you! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you've finally stopped hiding behind the pretence that there is any "policy" involved here and that what we have is a difference of opinion. I don't have a "POV" on its embarrassing the Bush admin. I read the papers, TBSDY, and I understand the importance of the timeline, that's all. I don't think the article is important enough to improve!Dr Zen 10:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Please stop asking me to "take it easy" in the edit history while you keep using statements like "stopped hiding behind the pretence". I am not hiding behind anything. I was following policy, and in fact I was the one who urged you to take this to VfD instead of making it a speedy deletion. My opposition to the article's deletion has nothing to do with my decision to remove the {{delete}} tags. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Al Qa Qaa - the title is inherently NPOV whereas the facility is what the article should be about. Capitalistroadster 08:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • What's NPOV about the title? The facility is only newsworthy because of the controversy it has stirred, so saying Al Qa Qaa controversy timeline is hardly taking a stance one way or the other. --Saforrest 12:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • If it had been a small section in a bigger article about Al Qa Qaa, I wouldn't have seen any problem with it. But the OP wasn't interested in compromise.Dr Zen 08:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not an accurate summary of what happened here. Dr Zen repeatedly placed the {{delete}} tag onto the article [1] [2], then when I took it off and advised him to take the article to VfD, he decided that it was too hard to do this [3], then finally decided to place the article on here. I'm unsure how persistently trying to delete this article is considered "compromise". Before he did this, Dr Zen insinuated that I doing this as a "rapid revenge for disagreeing with you on another subject" [4] (not entirely sure what he's talking about here) and then when I copied and pasted in the reasons why you should use the delete tag (which he deliberately removed from his talk page [5]) he stated that I am a "a rules lawyer!" [6] With regards to Dr Zen's understanding of "discussion": his sole contribution was to state "This has got to go. It's notable today but probably won't be in a couple of weeks. At best it's a tiny footnote to the war on Iraq. Dr Zen 05:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)" [7], then when Sbwoodside responded he stated that "Well then, dood. If you can't claim with any accuracy that it will be, out it has to go Dr Zen 05:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)" [8]. I don't particularly want to get too involved in this whole issue, however I don't particularly like it when people try to twist words and misrepresent facts. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Jeez man, do you think perhaps you are taking this a bit far? Is it necessary to try to swamp this particular discussion with your perception of our disagreement over whether it should be speedily deleted? Apart from anything else, I have done as you suggested and put it up for a vote, so I feel that your continuing the dispute here is rather malicious. You are not in fact arguing to keep the page but to smear me. It seems a bit much for a small disagreement. Perhaps you recognise that your case was weak in the first place? I ask you to refactor your comments and to try to calm down a bit (and please note that there's nothing sinister about my editing my own talk page -- I know what the rules say, I don't need the reminder). If you agree that you will, I'm happy for you to delete this and any other of my comments that you do not feel are contributory, so long as you leave my vote.Dr Zen 10:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Hi. You said that the OP (I assume this means "other party") was not willing to compromise. I was responding to this. I also realise there is nothing sinister with you editing your own page, I was just pointing out that I did in fact give you the reasons for my removal of the speedy deletion tag. I have no intention of removing any of your comments, or removing your vote. Let me put it this way: if the Wikipedia community decides that this article should be removed from Wikipedia, I will do it personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • OP=original poster. Not you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. AFAIC, we're all cool and there's no need for any further heat in this kitchen.Dr Zen 10:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't object to seeing this moved to this to Al Qa Qaa controversy (or another title if someone can suggest one) since it does define Al Qa Qaa controversy. --Saforrest 16:09, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deleting this would be POV. RickK 18:44, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, would you mind explaining that, Rick? I've noted your valuable contributions to Wikipedia, so I'd really welcome your expanding on what on the face of it sounds a bit odd.Dr Zen 01:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Certainly. As this has become a political hot potato in the US presidential election, it is definitely an item worth discussing in an NPOV way. To delete it smacks of trying to hide things under the rug. RickK 04:52, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks fine to me, though I haven't personally checked any of the facts. The motives of the person creating the article are only relevant to the extent that they cast light on the article's point of view. Looks adequately NPOV at first glance as I read it now, but if not it can be edited into balance. All sorts of things that are not very notable become notable from being involved in the news. United Airlines Flight 93 was not encyclopedic prior to 9/11, now it is. Al Qa Qaa is a controversy and we should expect active editing, discussion in the Talk page, perhaps discussions of moving it to a different title, but I see absolutely no grounds for deletion. It's certainly notable now. If it doesn't look notable in five years, someone can bring it up on VfD then and maybe there will be consensus to delete it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come on now, this is really superfluous! Obviously the controversy deserves a footnote in history (maybe more if anything more comes of it, but it is too soon to speculate on that), but it can easily be mentioned on the Al Qa Qaa page in just a couple of short sentences. Every single current event that comes along does not deserve an entry; this is an encyclopedia; it is supposed to report on established fact and not lap up every single current event that comes along. Indrian 01:30, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with the above statement that deleting this would be POV. Dr. Zen, I don't get the reading that this is 'just to embaress the Bush admin'. Many tons of stolen explosive = scandal. The fact that Sadam was doing a better job keeping it secure than Bush has nothing to do with it. jericho4.0 03:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Then I ask you the same, Jericho4.0. What do you mean by "would be POV"? You think it would introduce a point of view by deleting it? I don't get it. Yes, many tons of explosive missing = scandal. The timeline is to do, though, with the political point that the Administration has either lied about when it knew about the missing weapons or about when they were stolen (because if they were stolen *before* US troops reached the facility, they would have known *then* that they were gone, but they say they only knew recently that they were gone). To be NPOV, you would need a whole other timeline because the facts are under dispute.Dr Zen 03:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Not a valid reason for deletion. If you think that another timeline is needed for NPOV, then please create. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • You're welcome to your opinion. I think you could use language that more clearly expressed that that is what this is. I don't think there should be "another timeline" for NPOV. I think the timeline is concerned with a transitory political point that is meaningless in a bigger context. Simply putting the other side's POV in does not make it any more or less transitory. I'm done with this now, TBSDY. I've tired of your pushing your POV without feeling the need to explain or defend it.Dr Zen 06:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment The funny thing is that if the insertion of this article was politically motivated, I don't know which side the contributor meant to be supporting. Ed Poor was fulminating yesterday on the mailing list about our coverage of the issue on the main page. He said that the Democrats and the liberal media had jumped on it to lambaste the President, and had failed to note that NBC had carried a later story saying that the explosives were already missing when our troops moved in. This latter factoid has since been spun by Republicans. And then spun the other way ("It wasn't a real search") by Democrats. So I don't know whether the supposed motive for inserting the article would have been to promote the "explosives went missing on Bush's watch" meme or the "explosives were already missing" meme. I think Wikipedia is actually fairly good at accumulating, balancing, and providing critical commentary on events while spin-is-in-progress. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, I will answer this point because I think you've missed my point. It's this: the "meme" that is going round is that the administration is *either* lying about when the explosives were stolen (because if they were gone when US troops got there they would have known then that they were) *or* about when they knew (because McClellan said they only just found out). The timeline serves this point. The events that it describes are not necessarily unnotable. However, I do ask where are the timelines for UN inspections of other facilities? And are we a timeline directory, or only for those events where their timelines score an anti-Bush point? As I've said, I share the politics of the OP on this score but I don't share his view that it merits coverage in an encyclopaedia. I note again that he never even bothered to explain what the controversy is. This is because the timeline is the controversy, not the looting.Dr Zen 01:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. I've completely rewritten Al Qa'qaa, which was a bit of a stub, and this timeline should be merged into that article. -- ChrisO 22:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Your rewrite makes the timeline entirely unnecessary.Dr Zen 01:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I think the timeline is still useful as it gives a good overview of when things happened. However, I would not be opposed to merging it into the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The timeline is at the core of the controversy since it is a matter of what happened at what time in order to establish what happened to the missing explosives. So the timeline should be preserved whatever the outcome. I think that the current controversy deserves a separate page from the facility itself. Sbwoodside 05:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Al Qa'qaa. Dan | Talk 02:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful current events. --*drew 02:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The timeline is the central piece of the controversy. It is the key to "Who knew what and when did they know it?" John Tinker 16:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful now, will still be useful in a decade. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Current total is 11 Keep, 2 delete, 2 merge, and 1 redirect. Does that qualify as a wiki-concensus to keep it? It's been 5 days now I think since the original deletion request. I would like to get the deletion marker off the article and update it and link it back in with new material that I have now (I'm the original author). Thanks. Sbwoodside 20:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion 06:10, 26 Oct 2004 [9]. The current Wikipedia:Deletion_policy page specifies a 5 day lag time. Which I understand to mean, that the VfD lasts for 5 days before deletion occurs. In this case, that lag time will end at 06:10, 31 Oct 2004.

As I understand the VfD process, at that point we would be looking for is:

"At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" (what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus") has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." - Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

Assuming the voting tally does not change by then, the article will remain undeleted and I will remove the VfD notice from the article header, in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion_process. Sbwoodside 21:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, apparently ending the VfD is for ops to do. Please :) BTW I renamed the article to Al Qa'qaa high explosives timelineSbwoodside 05:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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