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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

[edit]

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

Almost certainly redundant and inferior to 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was suggested on the talk page that this article be merged but no one participated. Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate as per precedent established with all the entries in Category:Timelines of military conflicts. It's useful for the reader to have both a main entry and a chronological timeline, both serve different purposes.--Hongkongresident (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was a timeline of events within the 200+KB article 2003 invasion of Iraq, I could understand the assertion that this was redundant. And if there were a timeline in that article, which is already busting at the seams, I'd suggest spinning it out. No surprise that nobody thought it should be merged back in. It is inferior to the extent that it needs more sourcing than the 13 citations in there at the moment, although newspapers abound with timelines like this. Mandsford 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this article is sketchy and duplicates the Iraq War article. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: normally, I don't like redundancy, but the massive size and organization of 2003 invasion of Iraq is intimidating, and not quite as easy to understand chronologically. This also seems to be part of a series; might as well be consistant. If there are gaps in coverage or referencing, that can be easily fixed. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This should be a content fork out of that article, and the original should be removed from the War article and put into this one. I'm not sure if AfD is the right place to read that kind of consensus, but that's my estimation of what needs to happen. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Editors should be able to create subarticles of large articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shadowjams and others. This is a quite reasonable fork of the main article, and should be kept. Cleaning it up, and cleaning up its place in the main article, are both editorial functions not requiring deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 28 October 2010 (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.