Deletion of Report to the Inspector General into Mobile Telecommunications Licenses in Iraq

Comment: per  Oh wow.  I see a lot of issues with this.  The lead is based on a MotherJones article and a book someone wrote.  The MotherJones article doesn't seem to support many of the article's claims.  The book is used as a reference for claims throughout the article, represented as undisputed fact. Books aren't reliable sources, even Then Wikileaks is used as a reference. All in all, this article is mostly original research. Other sources include democraticunderground.com, illinoispaytoplay.com, etc. If this article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite, every section is riddled with non-neutral language, and an article like this would only be statable as fact had there been a conviction or an admittal of guilt.  I am having trouble finding one, but am of course open to reconsidering if one is presented.  Many revisions would also meet the grounds for  #2  as they attack a .  Really, the easiest way to get a useful article would be to just 'Blow it up and start over', assuming this can pass notability guidelines. &#8213;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:CRD||WP:BLP)