553:), all or almost all of which still look like reliable sources today. The article can certainly be improved - citing what can be cited from reliable sources (identified so far or still to be found), adding relevant new material from these, deleting material that can't be reliably sourced after a bit more searching, attempting to add depth to the article by searching for later critiques of the rumours and associated news management (probably but not necessarily from academic sources), possibly even (after further discussion on the article's talk page) restructuring or renaming it. But, as such improvements can be carried out, these are reasons for editing the article, not deleting it.
466:; they do not have to be included yet in the article. Knowledge (XXG) is not on deadline; it is a work in progress, and any refs found during the AFD can be added later.As for "since-refuted speculation," the article never claims that Hussein was actually killed by the US assassination attempts in 2003, only that US officials and US media floated statements about how he had probably been killed by specifically directed US bombing attacks, just as they floated rumors that another enemy, Bin Laden, had been killed when they used a cruise missile in Afghanistan to assassinate some random and innocent tall man,
549:. The article as it stands certainly does not meet current Knowledge (XXG) standards, but is a good example of a fully acceptable Knowledge (XXG) article of eight or nine years ago, when most of it was originally written. In themselves, these are not valid reasons either for deleting or keeping the article. What matters is if the article can be edited to meet current standards - it can. Ironically, one useful resource is actually buried in the article history - until late 2006, the article contained a sizeable "External Links" section (see, for example,
582:. But comparing this article with those two makes it obvious how little there is to say about Saddam by comparison. Given that he was only 'missing' for a period of nine months between the start of the war and his capture, rumours about his status in the meantime just don't seem to me to have any great historical importance. A summary of this article might be appropriate in the background section of
570:- nine years on, this article looks basically like trivia. Yes, it's true that there were rumours that Saddam had died before he was captured; yes, those rumours received press coverage and sources can still be found. But does that make this a notable subject for an article? I'm not convinced it does. In general, 'rumours of X' is a poor basis for an article: see e.g.
312:. WP:NOTNEWS applies in addition to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anything about failed attempts to kill Hussein can be covered within reason under the article about Saddam Hussein, but a redirect would not be a logical move as there is no obvious redirect. Who is going to search for rumors about his death, when it's already known how he died?--
239:"a young woman's severed head and a small boy's body were pulled Tuesday from a smoking crater.." "For the second time in the war, coalition forces were wondering whether they'd gotten their man." "..US-led forces first attempted to kill Saddam with an opening salvo airstrike in the beginning of the war.." AP, 2003
500:
means we should not create a new article on random attempts at it, unless they are of lasting significance. A few unsuccessful bombing raids are not of lasting significance for a separate article. Some much shorter mentions of those attempts already exist in numerous articles. The most that would be
232:
to an article about
Hussain. US government spokesmen said that they thought they had killed Hussein with bunker buster bombs dropped on his palaces, then later by bombing and destroying a restaurant full of people they thought to be his inner circle. Perhaps the article should be recast as attempts
344:
Your argument does not work because I am pretty sure no one issued an obituary for Saddam. These "rumors" are really just speculation about him being killed in some attack that we know actually failed. If we had an article about the various times every dictator/terrorist/combatant was reported to
233:
by the US to kill
Hussein by bombing. Such attacks and news conferences about the occasions times the US thought they had killed him is far from indiscriminate information. References for US government officials thinking they killed Hussein by killing the people in the restaurant in Mansour:
474:. This article might be re-aimed as "US Attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein" to preserve the notable information about policies , attacks, and the bystanders who were killed, along with the rumor-mongering intended to increase public support for the administration's policies.
82:
571:
309:
658:
638:
321:
219:
175:
358:
510:
275:
77:
523:
to delete articles on those battles. And, both in modern wars and in the Thirty Years War, what people believed about what was happening in the war can be as relevant to the progress of the war as individual battles.
453:
The preceding claim is incorrect, since sources were identified above. AFD participants are expected to read what has been written previously in the AFD before claiming there are no references. Refs just have to
614:
595:
562:
533:
445:
385:
339:
300:
257:
169:
266:
I think some of the information could easily be included elsewhere, but I can think of no circumstances where this would be a valid redirect so a merge would be inappropriate, in my opinion.--
109:
104:
287:
It's a topic of intrinsic worth and interest. If, however, someone does a good enough merge, I would be happy to see a redirect. But for now, why not use summary style and have a link from
113:
235:"the betting in the Pentagon's executive offices is that the Iraqi dictator lies dead under a pile of rubble in Baghdad, according to defense and intelligence officials." USA Today, 2003
96:
646:
136:
238:
371:
483:
61:
623:
579:
190:
157:
151:
17:
147:
100:
654:
634:
506:
354:
317:
271:
215:
197:
92:
67:
327:
676:
40:
575:
439:
207:
650:
630:
502:
350:
313:
267:
211:
163:
471:
243:"Growing belief that Saddam is dead," Sidney Morning Herald, April 2003. Cites intercepted Iraqi communications
401:
288:
210:
collection of unfounded rumors and no longer has sufficient significance to be included on
Knowledge (XXG).
413:
672:
206:
This article is about rumors of
Hussein's death even though it is well-known how he died. It is thus an
36:
234:
558:
529:
247:
Guardian, July 2003: mentions previous claims Saddam was killed, when his sons were reported killed.
409:
183:
591:
583:
326:
Oh, I don't know; maybe the same people who would look the premature obituary of Mark Twain? See
574:. There are exceptions: we have a couple of similar articles to this one about Osama bin Laden,
397:
246:
242:
610:
381:
335:
296:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
671:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
572:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Rumors about the
September 11 attacks (2nd nomination)
516:
479:
253:
57:
520:
497:
417:
346:
554:
525:
467:
429:
463:
459:
587:
606:
377:
331:
292:
605:- Completely unsourced amalgam of ephemeral rumors. No lasting historical import.
130:
475:
249:
53:
519:
was a war. Of course there were battles. But this does not mean that we apply
435:
501:
reasonable is to expand on the mention of those attempts in other articles.--
83:
Articles for deletion/Rumours of the death of Saddam
Hussein (2nd nomination)
308:
I believe a similar rationale for removal can be used as the one used in
237:
Ref for numerous civilians killed by the
Mansour assassination attempt:
241:. There was general coverage of rumors of the death of Saddam in 2003:
665:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
496:
It was a war. Of course there were attempts to kill Saddam.
78:
Articles for deletion/Rumours of the death of Saddam
Hussein
396:
wholly unsourced (as of time of this !vote) article giving
550:
126:
122:
118:
182:
420:) to be merged (though itt may be appropriate for a
412:
journalism is notable. Do not merge, as there is no
330:, in which I have now linked the present article. --
196:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
679:). No further edits should be made to this page.
647:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
416:material (let alone material that does not fail
8:
645:Note: This debate has been included in the
622:Note: This debate has been included in the
370:Note: This debate has been included in the
372:list of People-related deletion discussions
644:
621:
369:
624:list of Iraq-related deletion discussions
580:Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories
345:possibly be dead there would be lots of
586:, but it doesn't need its own article.
75:
551:this version of the article, from 2004
432:on the basis of sources listed here).
93:Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein
68:Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein
515:My main arguments are below. But the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
470:, who was collecting scrap metal in
349:clutter all over Knowledge (XXG).--
74:
24:
1:
52:. Zero references = goodbye.
659:17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
639:17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
615:16:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
596:13:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
563:20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
534:20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
511:17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
484:14:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
328:List of premature obituaries
62:09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
576:Location of Osama bin Laden
446:05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
386:23:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
359:00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
340:23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
322:23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
301:22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
276:22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
258:22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
220:21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
696:
668:Please do not modify it.
428:material to be added to
400:weight to since-refuted
32:Please do not modify it.
289:Death of Saddam Hussein
73:AfDs for this article:
651:The Devil's Advocate
631:The Devil's Advocate
503:The Devil's Advocate
458:in order to satisfy
351:The Devil's Advocate
314:The Devil's Advocate
268:The Devil's Advocate
212:The Devil's Advocate
394:Delete or redirect:
584:Operation Red Dawn
48:The result was
661:
641:
627:
388:
375:
687:
670:
628:
517:Thirty Years War
444:
404:. No indication
376:
201:
200:
186:
134:
116:
34:
695:
694:
690:
689:
688:
686:
685:
684:
683:
677:deletion review
666:
442:
433:
310:this discussion
143:
107:
91:
88:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
693:
691:
682:
681:
662:
642:
618:
617:
599:
598:
565:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
489:
488:
487:
486:
438:
430:Saddam Hussein
402:WP:SPECULATION
390:
389:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
303:
281:
280:
279:
278:
261:
260:
208:indiscriminate
204:
203:
140:
87:
86:
85:
80:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
692:
680:
678:
674:
669:
663:
660:
656:
652:
648:
643:
640:
636:
632:
625:
620:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
535:
531:
527:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
485:
481:
477:
473:
472:February 2002
469:
465:
461:
457:
452:
449:
448:
447:
443:
441:
437:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:WP:Verifiable
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
373:
368:
367:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
282:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
199:
195:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
149:
146:
145:Find sources:
141:
138:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
79:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
667:
664:
602:
567:
546:
455:
450:
434:
425:
421:
405:
393:
305:
284:
229:
225:
205:
193:
187:
179:
172:
166:
160:
154:
144:
49:
47:
31:
28:
521:WP:NOT#NEWS
498:WP:NOT#NEWS
347:WP:NOT#NEWS
170:free images
54:Max Semenik
555:PWilkinson
526:PWilkinson
468:Daraz Khan
410:WP:TABLOID
408:that such
406:whatsoever
673:talk page
424:piece of
378:• Gene93k
37:talk page
675:or in a
588:Robofish
398:WP:UNDUE
332:Uncle Ed
293:Uncle Ed
137:View log
39:or in a
607:Carrite
451:Comment
306:Comment
176:WP refs
164:scholar
110:protect
105:history
603:Delete
568:Delete
476:Edison
418:WP:NOT
250:Edison
148:Google
114:delete
50:delete
456:exist
440:Stalk
436:Hrafn
422:short
230:Merge
191:JSTOR
152:books
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
655:talk
635:talk
611:talk
592:talk
578:and
559:talk
547:Keep
530:talk
507:talk
480:talk
464:WP:V
462:and
460:WP:N
382:talk
355:talk
336:talk
318:talk
297:talk
291:? --
285:Keep
272:talk
254:talk
226:Keep
216:talk
184:FENS
158:news
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
58:talk
426:new
228:or
198:TWL
135:– (
657:)
649:.
637:)
626:.
613:)
594:)
561:)
532:)
509:)
482:)
384:)
374:.
357:)
338:)
320:)
299:)
274:)
256:)
245:,
218:)
178:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
60:)
653:(
633:(
629:—
609:(
590:(
557:(
528:(
505:(
478:(
380:(
353:(
334:(
316:(
295:(
270:(
252:(
214:(
202:)
194:·
188:·
180:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
150:(
142:(
139:)
133:)
95:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.