Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - no consensus

Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran
There is a lot of discussion about renaming or deleting Israeli violence against Palestinian children because the title is POV. Here is a clear example of POV title and cut and past from US State Department report. Besides, the relevant information from a newer report is already in Islam in Iran article OneGuy 20:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would also add that source is not neutral either (the US government on Iran). This would be like someone posting a report by Iranian government on Israel OneGuy 23:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete copyvio and POV title. --Deathphoenix 21:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with Islam in Iran. A quick survey shows that this relevant material is not in fact already in that article. Copyvio is not raised as a problem with USGS and census material that is cut and pasted in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. One wonders why is it raised in this instance. Any biased and unprofessionally intemperate wording from the US State Department report (!!) should be recast in genuinely neutral phrasing. Or is it simply the information that offends Islamists? --Wetman 21:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with being "offensive." That part of the article in Islam in Iran should be short and relevant. Otherwise if that section is this long as this article, it will have to be moved to some other article than Islam in Iran. That was the reason it was short. I would like to see how quickly people would vote to delete if someone cuts and posts State Department's report about Israel with the title Discrimination against non-Jews in Israel. Would you have responded with the comment "Or is it simply the information that offends Jews?" OneGuy 22:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? -Sean Curtin 22:31, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think putting on VFD an article with POV title from non-neutral source is "disrupting Wikipedia," then you have serious problems OneGuy 00:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge where applicable and redirect. -Sean Curtin 22:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Large parts should be in the existing page Religious minorities in Iran so take the text, put it onto talk pages of that page and let us get on with merging the relevant information. Refdoc 22:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge as appropriate. Wyss 22:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename into neutral Human rights in Iran or some such. Sidenote: IMHO, the choice to ostracize tiny and democratic State of Israel for scrutiny in a discussion about internal problems in a huge totalitarian Islamic country (surrounded by other huge totalitarian Islamic countries) tells more about the author of the VfD than about the subject.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your comments above says more about your bias than the valid reasons I gave that the title is POV, and the source (the US government on Iran) is also not neutral. How would you like to see a report by Iranian government on Israel posted on wikipedia? OneGuy 23:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useable to Islam in Iran (maybe a subheading?). Megan1967 00:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge. Carrp 04:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep--Malbear 05:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Big POV. This is US state communication material: it is not an attempt at fairly reporting on the subject. It is fundamentaly biased for it is the expression of a country 1) at war 2) christian. Also, there is no point in blandly duplicating this material. IMO it's worth a link but not duplication in WE. Gtabary 11:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per above. This article is not a copyvio; the State Department report is in the public domain. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. The US State Department reports are generally a credible source, and are public domain, but the article title isn't NPOV, and there is no need to duplicate large portions of the report &mdash; that's better left to Wikisource.  Put what is useful into articles with more NPOV titles, leave the rest. Shimeru 20:24, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge __earth 00:26, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Conti|&#9993; 03:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. We have articles here on the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.; I am sure Torquemada and Hitler would not be thrilled with the facts presented there. It would be no less than absurd to obscure a factual set of interesting and useful information- that of the well documented actual discrimination against especially Baha'i and Jews in Iran- because of one user's apparent distaste for criticism of anti-Semitic activity. One could do worse than the United States government in seeking out factual information; although if someone wishes to use information from FreedomHouse, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Britannica, or whatever to suplement this material, fine with me.

Also, I second user Humus Sapiens's comments- the focus on democratic Israel in an irrelevant discussion, which was meant to analyze a region full of totalitarian autocracies, goes beyong legitimate criticism and enters the realm of double standards, which according to former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky is one sure indicator of anti-Semitism. Along with OneGuy's disparaging comments about "Zionists", this leads one to question whether he supports the views of genocidal mass-murderers, such as Adolf Hitler and Yasser Arafat, and questions the right to Jewish sovereignty, alone of all the world's nations.__sirmikeguy 04:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * User:SirMikeGuy has no history on wikipedia, so I wonder if his vote even counts. Also, his slanderous "wondering" above about whether I "support" genocidal mass-murderers, such as Adolf Hitler is a violation of No personal attacks OneGuy 10:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge. Jayjg |  (Talk)  02:49, 16 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.