Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran and weapons of mass destruction


 * 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 of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran and weapons of mass destruction
Change title or delete Iran and weapons of mass destruction, which is misleading since it automatically forces the conclusion that Iran has got such weapons of mass destruction. Although Iran does have a nuclear program, started in the 1950s, there is no proof whatsoever that Iran possess WMD. As there are very real threats of a US "pre-emptive" attack on Iran, I do not think that Wikipedia should advocate this position using titles good for propaganda. Read the article carefully: the first section on chemical weapons deals with... the Iraqi use of chemicals! The part on the nuclear program is well treated in the specific article concerning it. What else is there? Whatever the effective content of the article, such a title automatically leads to the confusing conclusion that Iran does has WMD, ready to use for today. After the Iraqi War and the proved conclusion that Iraq did not dispose of any WMD, I think everybody should be a bit more careful with stuff like that. Satyagit 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The tilte does not insinuate anything. It does not read "Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction", which would make the previous stance correct. The tilte effectively seperates the two ideas of "Iran" and "WMD" but at the same time seeks to explore the relationship between the two. It shows both sides (the Iranian view and the U.S./E.U. view) and links to support both theories. User:Brian Steeves 00:22, 12 April 2006


 * Speedy keep. We have dozens of "X country and WMDs" articles (see template:WMD) which are meant to discuss all aspects of a country's alleged or denied WMD development; the title does not automatically imply anything, it is meant to be an article about Iran and WMDs, which could just as easily be about how they don't have them. As for "being careful", I don't think Wikipedia article titles had any effect on the Iraq war. The article also contains discussions of Iran's chemical weapons history and their having signed the biological warfare convention; it is not limited to nuclear issues. The overt attempt to use AfD as a forum for a political issue of this sort ("vote for peace?") is inappropriate to say the least. --Fastfission 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as Per Fastfission (ironic name). bad faith nom. --Mmx1 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Mmx1 --Kalsermar 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Mmx1 Carlossuarez46 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and add lead summarizing the current state. For example, see Canada and weapons of mass destruction: "Canada does not possess any weapons of mass destruction and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them. Canada ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1930."--Yannick 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Mmx1. This article exists to separate WMD claims from Irans civilian program. --Uncle Bungle 02:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Mmx1. A leading summary, such as that proposed by Yannick, is an unnecessary disclaimer (since the title insinuates no possession of WMDs on the part of Iran).  However, it should be added in the interest of neutrality, since it is present in every (or almost every) other article entitled "[country] and WMDs".--Clownboat 07:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Fastfission. Dave Kielpinski 12:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hesitant Keep I agree that we should be neutral towards Iran, and that people are only worrying about them because they're Middle Eastern. However, many people think opposite me, and they also have to be respected.  In that sense, we should have an article discussing those allegations, whether they be true or false.  The title doesn't necessarily say that Iran has WMDs, it just says that some people think they do.  Later, zappa 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the title says neither of those things and I think if Iran was located on an island off Antarctica inhabited solely by Polynesians but with the same policies then there'd be an article just as much.--Kalsermar 13:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - we have articles for all credible potential nuclear powers and former nuclear weapon powers (see List of nuclear weapons). Iran surely meets the criteria of being credible potential, and has for some time.  NPOV requires labeling known fact and speculation appropriately, but the article is clearly justified.  Georgewilliamherbert 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I do not feel the title simply implies that Iran has "weapons of mass destruction", but could also rather imply the relationship of WMDs and Iran. This could also include Iran's stance on them, such as treaties they've signed into, their position toward each type of WMD, etc.  Provided enough information, all countries in the world could/should(?) have an article titled " and weapons of mass destruction"; think "United States and weapons of mass destruction".  I do, however, believe that the template on the right-hand side of the page, titled "Weapons of mass destruction" is very biased, implying that a country on the list currently has WMDs; it lists both countries that currently have WMDs and countries that used to have WMDs at some point in history but not at present.  Maybe the template should read something like "History of WMDs by Country"? --Farnkerl 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The template also lists countries which had some tangental interest in WMD technology, or aborted or potential WMD programs (Taiwan, Brasil, Canada, Netherlands; it should include South Korea, who briefly had a nuclear bomb program in the early 1980s, but doesn't right now). Inclusion in the list does not imply current posession, as any review of the template list entries will show.  I understand the knee-jerk reaction that inclusion presumes them guilty, but objectively Iran clearly does qualify for inclusion on the same basis as many of the others.  The list should actually be significantly longer (see ).  Georgewilliamherbert 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and change title as per nom. -- Szvest 19:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * 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.