Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadavi Doctrine


 * 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 delete. The discussion below had a majority consensus that there is insufficient independent coverage to warrant an article on either Ali Fadavi or his doctrine. Deryck C. 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fadavi Doctrine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a cut-and-paste move from Favadi Doctrine, which was created the day of the speech in question with essentially the text we have now. Three years later this has no GBook footprint and (once you eliminate WP) no significant link footprint; it's not hard to figure that what hits there are arise from copying/paraphrasing our text, since nobody provides much more than a definition and reference to the speech. After this much time, in a hot geopolitical topic, there should be a lot of commentary if this were a real thing. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep but consider whether Fadavi Doctrine should instead be redirected to an article on Ali Fadavi (which currently is redirected to the article on Falavi Doctrine). WP:MILPEOPLE accepts notability as established if an individual has "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." Perhaps Fadavi's statements equating Israel to the United States (the "Fadavi Doctrine") are something of a flash-in-the-pan, but his position with the Iranian military renders those statements hard to ignore. Independent and reputable sources appear if his name is fed into search engines. The reason for the appearance of his name in those sources is irrefutably his statements forming the Fadavi Doctrince. So, again, my recommendation is to keep the substance of the article although I can go along with a judgment call to subsume it elsewhere and provide sufficient redirects to make it easy to find. Perhaps, however, the best treatment is still to leave "Fadavi Doctrine" as a self-standing article and to redirect his name to it while also beefing up the cited sources. Rammer (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. This and others are currently being discussed at WP:RFD. Persian and Arabic names are often transliterated in different ways into English, so the redirects suggested would be valid, but it has to go somewhere. I agree with Buckshot06 to reorganise the whoe lot, but until we get consensus at WP:RFD I can't see how we can do that with consensus. 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
 * Reorganise to Ali Fadavi, as a notable flag/general officer and head of the IRGC Navy, in which these statements can be replicated. Retain redirect but we need an article on the IRGC Navy head, as a service chief. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His notability simply as a military figure is not germane to this discussion. The redirect can be turned into an article if he be so, but if we decide that this isn't a thing, it doesn't matter one way or the other. And that's really the problem: if this were a thing, like Mutually Assured Destruction, we would find discussion of it under its own name. I couldn't find any of that; everything I found was simply a repetition of our text, word for word, with no elaboration. As far as I can tell someone here took it upon themselves to give a name to a point in a speech a very short time after it was given, but if that point is the subject of discussion, it is not so under the name we assigned to it. If nobody finds significant evidence to the contrary, then it doesn't matter if the speaker gets his own article in the end; this should be deleted, with no redirect to replace it. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Mangoe is right. It makes little sense to recommend keeping the article but then changing it to have a different subject. There's no need to tangle page history like that. In fact, RfD is dealing with a couple of messes left from such ill-advised efforts in the past. This is not a discussion about the notability of Ali Fadavi, who indeed seems notable. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources to appear to pass WP:GNG. Ali Fadavi is presumed notable per WP:SOLDIER as a flag officer, but the subject of this AfD fails GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2015 (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.