Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical attack on behbahan battalion


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Chemical attack on behbahan battalion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Possible merge to Iraq-Iran war, but WP is not news, so doesn't need its own article. I don't think a redirect is useful either.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, the nom is spot on with his assessment, and I agree with it. Redirect not useful (unless you create a new one for Behbahan Battalion instead), merge useful info per nom.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Accepting the offline sources on good faith, I think that this might be notable. We'd certainly have a (hugely detailed) article for any recent chemical weapons attack on a western military unit had these occurred, and have lots of articles on much less significant military engagements than this. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep this is unquestionably notable. Should be kept somewhere. Suggest we close this AfD and let the normal editing process take its course. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing against the notability - alot of news stories are notable. However, this is one minor engagement in a battle which doesn't even have an article (not that that means a whole lot). Also, please read Speedy keep. In no way, shape or form is this eligible for speedy keep, unless you are suggesting this is a bad-faith nomination.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, Strong Keep or possibly rename to Battle of Shalamcheh. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is customary when one changes their !vote, that they strike their old !vote, by surrounding it with [old vote], or their entire comment if that is appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My meaning is clear. Would everybody please stop tying me in knots with wikilawyering red tape and vote on the substance of the discussion. Mr Brown, you could at the very least express an opinion. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I already did. I was the first.  Look up.  And my comment was only meant to be helpful.  Please read WP:AGF.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was a little confused with Buckshot's comment to Dennis Brown as well, seeing as he already...anyway, its probably best to let this tangential conversation die. Buckshot, my apologies for any "wikilawyering"; it's just that speedy keep has a very specific meaning, and it can be somewhat insulting if used wrong. Regardless, we're about to have a forced 24-hour cooldown. Cheers, and I hope to see you on the other side --  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 08:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment - apologies to Mr Brown, my oversight. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an incident during Iran-Iraq war, it worth to have an article. Just some improvements are needed.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What does its involvement in the Iran-Iraq war have to do with whether or not we should keep it?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - whatever the Wiki-history here, the article is now satisfactorily written and sourced. If it doesn't fit well with other coverage of the I-I war, that means other articles are waiting to be written, not that this one is at fault. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Chiswick says, at this point it meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2012 (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.