Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands Off the People of Iran


 * 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. F&W's recent improvements to the article are enough to warrent the keeping of this article. ( X! ·  talk )  · @033  · 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hands Off the People of Iran

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Questionable notability/encyclopedic relevance, entire article is pretty much unsalvageable biased/vanity material. Delete, but if you must keep, stub--Tznkai (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've tried to strip out some of (what I think are) the more egregious breaches of WP:NPOV with a view to salvaging this marginal article. I've noted as such on the article talkpage. I'm not yet persuaded that it deserves to survive this AfD, so I'll hold off with a !vote for now. Crafty (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ORG, does not even appear to avoid WP:V's "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: For the reasons stated above and especially egregiously bad sourcing. If crafty or someone else can find some third party sourcing for this group, I might change my mind, but i really have my doubts that this group ever amounted to much. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The sourcing of this article has substantially improved since nomination, im still not convinced the group amounts to much, but at least we know they actually amounted to something. Bonewah (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No third party sources, my 3 minute google search turned up few links that aren't primary. Good chunks of the article seem to be cut-and-pasted from HOPI's official website, though there is significant other material so G12 doesn't apply. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed that this is cut and pasted article. I can't find anything that doesn't come from the org itself or is a simple rewrite of what they have on their pages.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for WP:ORG - no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" --Saalstin (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:ORG, clear case IMHO, borderline speedy ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm taken aback by the blase nature of some of these deletion arguments: "My 3 minute Google search", "Borderline speedy". Please take a little more effort in considering deletions, it's just so easy to pile on. Cut-and-paste is a shoddy way of writing an article - thank you Craftyminion for stripping it out - but that shouldn't be taken into account in considering notability. I've added some sources, some of which were already mentioned on the talk page. The group has received coverage in the British and Irish press, so this is certainly not just a vanity piece, and HOPI does have significant support from the British left. It's not just a couple of random activists. Even if it is decided that the organisation isn't notable enough to keep, per WP:PRESERVE we should merge content to Opposition to military action against Iran rather than just deleting it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Recent edits by F&Ws not only expand the piece but add much needed references. Failing a keep I support Merging relevant content with Opposition to military action against Iran in the manner outlined by F&Ws. Crafty (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: much of these new additions appear unsourced. The only material that demonstrates potential for "significant coverage" in third party sources, the Dublin protest and the expulsion, get only minimal coverage in the article (making their true impact uncertain). I see nothing as yet to make me change my above opinion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add anything without a source. I'll look for sources on the date of the conference and the affiliated groups. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the unsourced material was pre-existing. However, it does constitute the bulk of the article, with your new sources only verifying a very narrow slice of it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the HOPI website verify affiliations and supporters? Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, but it is not third-party, so confers no notability. And that still leaves large swathes unreferenced. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article can be whittled down, but I believe this meets notability requirements, and is a reasonably large movement with clear potentiality for encyclopedic documentation. -- QUANTUM ZENO  21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - Hopi has received plenty of coverage, not least from people opposed to it. This needs to be more laboriously sourced, perhaps, but it is certainly a medium-sized fish in the pond of the British anti-war movement. A deletion would be pointless. Commander deathguts (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are good enough and this is a notable subject.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakish Delete I am not entirely certain why english language encyclopedia should contain article on the several hundred people strong movement based in United Kingdom that have managed to organize an demonstration once? Is there some historical effect achieved, I cannot find, and such are not recorded in the article either, so notability is questionable. Casimirpo (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep sources can be expanded upon, but what's there at least to me gives notability. Nja 247 07:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - has been significantly improved. Artw (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (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.