Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse

:{{la|Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse}} ([{{fullurl:Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Content fork of Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, which already covers the subject in depth. This appears to be a disconnected jumble of copy-pasting from various sources, violating WP:NOT#IINFO. I can't see much (if anything) worth the hassle of a merger, so deletion is probably appropriate.  Sandstein  22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• delete per nom. - 7-bubёn >t 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep the parent article is quite large, which is why this daughter article was created. The content hasn't really evolved enough though, the quality isn't great and could be summarised in the parent article. Or equally, details in the parent article (eg recent photos) could be merged here and the article cleaned up. The latter approach would benefit the parent article, allowing it to focus on the wider picture without getting bogged down in the details (the reason this article was created in the first place). Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Sure, the parent article could do with a split per WP:SS, but this random accumulation of facts is not the way to go about it. This article was created in 2005 and has not really improved since; also, what kind of topic is "Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse" anyway?  Sandstein  07:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::*Random? To answer your question, it was the details of the abuse that actually took place, which circa 2005 was the subject of massive news-driven editing (WP:RECENTISM), so splitting it into a separate article was useful then. I've suggested why it might still be useful now. A name to change might help clarify the purpose - Details of Abu Ghraib abuse, say. By the way, with your "random" remark are you implying that these details are trivial, and shouldn't be in WP? It's not well done but it's hardly random. Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete pointless duplication. DGG (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete duplicate and obsolete. This article always seemed as though its primary purpose was because we had too many pictures for the main article. -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - just to point out that I disagree with the nominator's assertion that it's a content fork; rather it's a (neglected) Wikipedia:Summary style article. As a result if it is deleted there is some stuff that needs to be merged into the parent. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:* Well, you still have a few days left to do that before the closure of this AfD, if you really think it is worth the while.  Sandstein  23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.