Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current international tensions with Iran (2)


 * 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 - There are no new arguments being brought out from the last debate. Aquarius &#149; talk 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Current international tensions with Iran

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a hodgepodge of info already covered under other pages, specifically Iran's nuclear program, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, 2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran, and others. Title also makes no sense. What will the page be called in a year when the conflict is over? It may be well-sourced but all of this is already covered on other pages. Perspicacite 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As Interiot said on the last AFD: "When the article was created, the events already were tied together by Foreign relations of Iran. It's not clear why we need an article that focuses only on the tensions, and doesn't include the aspects of Iran's foreign policy that other countries can agree with. And there's no clear reason that we need the summary of current events to be separated from the summary of historical events (especially when foreign relations of Iran has long addressed both). --Interiot 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)" Perspicacite 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant article, "tensions" can be a bit WP:OR-ish of a word too... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep very encyclopediac and well sourced article. Not redundent at all. This puts info into a new list and expresses modern views.--Sefringle 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It's abundantly clear that there is an ongoing international crisis involving Iran; perhaps a rename might be in order to avoid loaded language, but the article, while in need of improvement, is encyclopedic and informative as it is. Paul079 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just finished reading - great article. Needs some tidying up with too many inconsistent styles but hell this would make a great featured article. Encyclopedic, well referenced (52 inline cites!) and definitely belongs here. Paxse 16:56, 26 May 2007 (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.