Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War


 * 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Creating a redirect would be an editorial matter. Sandstein 05:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranian-American War

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am not sure we need an article on a war that has not happened, and may well not happen. This article basically says 'some people think that the US will have a war agaisnt Iran'. I admit there should be an article on the opposition to war against Iran; that actually exists. This doesn't, and hopefully never will. J Milburn 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominating this article for deletion is ridiculous. We already have articles on the military planning of the Iran war and opposition to the Iran War. How can you have Opposition to war against Iran and Plans for military attacks against Iran and not have an article on the Iran War? I suggest you look at Articles for deletion/Sino-American War before catsing you vote. I don't see how anyone can say that this article fails to meet the standards that Sino-American War has. --Lee1863 13:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stong Keep Deleting this article makes 3 other articles obsolete. In addition there ha sbeen strong talk in the media and scholars for nearly 3 years now. --Lee1863 13:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Two points. First of all, stop claiming things, and start citing things. Secondly, this article has only just sprung up- the other articles weren't obsolete before. To be fair, this article is obsolete to the others- it contains no new information, or anything that could not be (and isn't already) elsewhere. Also, they managed to cite the other article. J Milburn 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is pure crystal ball stuff and violates WP:CRYSTAL and I think breaches all three examples. Whilst this could happen, so could any other war with countries that dont get on well, but its pure speculation. --PrincessBrat 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: First off just because an article doesn't have sources yet doesn't mean you delete it. Second of all there has been large talk in the media about the Iran War. Explain to me how this article fails to meet the same standards met here: Articles for deletion/Sino-American War --Lee1863 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On this point, if its not sourced isnt that deemed original research which isnt allowed on here? --PrincessBrat 14:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research is content that cannot be sourced to a reliable source. It does not apply to content that is simply unsourced. A unsourced statement that "Tony Blair is 53 years old" can be checked and confirmed or refuted. -- Black Falcon 18:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Explain to me how this article fails to meet the same standars met here: Articles for deletion/Sino-American War --Lee1863 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I dont think that was the right decision to keep the above article as thats the same thing as we are arguing here. Its speculation - but Ive looked at the policy quoted in the arguement to keep and in my view they both contradict each other. In a proper paper encyclopedia you would not find these sort of articles, only ones that have happened. These sort of articles are great reads, but should be on conspiracy/military sites. Whilst you could say that articles keep decision sets a precedent, Im standing by my vote of delete --PrincessBrat 14:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:That article was kept because there was no consensus to delete, not because there was a consensus to keep. In any case, please see WP:WAX. J Milburn 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: But this is a special circumstance considering that there has been vastly greater media attention placed on the Iran War than any war with China. Thus even WP:WAX acknowledges that there are exceptions. That rule was only created to prevent unjust comparisons, I don't think anyone can claim that the debate is fundamentally diferent here. It doesnt say that other afd debates can't be used as a defense it simply states "but even here caution should be used." "look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited" The policies are IDENTICAL here. It would be a complete mockery to have an article on Sino-American War and none on the much more debated and notable Iran War. There is also the World War III World War IV article. --Lee1863 14:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have arguments agaisnt what you are saying- if you really care, message me. However, it is irrelevent. Can we forget about the other articles, and discuss this one only. Pretend this is the only article on Wikipedia, but we still have all our policies, and defend it. That will create a better debate. J Milburn 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Textbook example of Crystal Ball. I don't care if it renders other articles obsolete -- if that's the case then consideration should be given as to whether the articles in question likewise should be here. If there's an article on speculative future American conflicts, then this can be mentioned there. The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument may apply to articles like the Sino-American conflict article mentioned ... or it may be independently notable for other reasons. For example there is plenty of good rationale for keeping an artcle on World War III, for example, because of the wealth of scholarly work and popular culture references regarding it. Very little if any exists for this particular speculated conflict. And on a minor note, the very article title is problematic as there is no guarantee such a war, should it happen, will be given this name. It's more likely to be called the Third Gulf War. 23skidoo 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Firstly, World War III is a cultural meme - people use the term and the idea to refer to all sorts of things other than an actual war. No one has said "I came home late without calling and it was like Iranian-American War." Second, there are already articles about the aspects of this war that have actually happened - the planning and the protest. We don't need another article that's only one paragraph and gives no new information. The existence of any other article does not relate to the existence of this one - Sino-American War should perhaps be deleted as well. Natalie 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Any truly notable snippets of information from this article could possibly go into Foreign relations of Iran. RJASE1 Talk  15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Far too theoretical to merit a place on wikipedia. As 23skidoo says, it's too bad if other articles are rendered obsolete. John Smith&#39;s 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We kept Sino-American war on the basis that the possibility had been discussed, and was therefore a notable topic. (I !voted otherwise, as I considered the various possibilities too amorphous.) The subject of this article is unfortunately a much more likely occurrence, it is all too clear what forms it is likely to take, and there have been numerous speculations about it. There are four good sources listed in major publications. More can easily be found.  I am a little puzzled, as to me it seems an obvious keep. DGG 16:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Coment First of all, previous decisions do not require a similar decision to be made on a similar entry. More importantly you are misrepresenting what happened on that nomination. From what I see it was not that the consensus was to keep, it was that there was no consensus (i.e. not a large enough majority) to delete. It is more accurate to say those that wanted to keep the page were lucky that more editors who would have voted for deletion didn't know a vote was taking place. John Smith&#39;s 17:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 16:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Terence 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The article covers a topic that has received coverage from multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources. That is to say, that it is attributable and notable. WP:NOT applies only to unverifiable speculation. This is clearly both verifiable and verified. It also states that "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur". -- Black Falcon 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A further note: the existence of the other two articles in no way affects my recommendation. A war between Iran and the U.S. has been the subject of sufficient coverage to merit its own article. The only issue I have is that the current article does not do the topic justice; but, that's an editing issue unrelated to AFD. -- Black Falcon 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sources I've added more refs., now 10 English language sources, ranging from Al-Jazeera to USA Today, from 2005 through 2007. There are many more, but I've done enough typing. It would be good to have some Iranian ones. And, as Black Falcon says, it would be nice to have a much better article. Sources are a start.


 * Strong Delete, I have never seen anything that didn't happen in an encyclopedia before. Even if it is refrenced well tha doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. It should be deleted under the third section of WP:CRYSTAL. Cheif Captain 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If this article was 2008 Iranian-American War, you would be correct. But it's not about a particular war; rather, it's about the concept of an Iranian-American War in general. -- Black Falcon 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a classic example of a situation where just because we have sources on something doesn't mean there should be an article about it.  "A war between Iran and the US might happen" is not an encylopedic topic.  One could also write articles on "Potential assassination of George Bush", or of whoever the current US president is at any moment, there are always people speculating on what would happen if a president dies, that wouldn't belong here either.  --Xyzzyplugh 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too speculative, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename/Repurpose to some title reflecting the potential for conflict between Iran and the United States. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Week Keep - I think the references provided are enough to demonstrate notability and to keep it. The article does however need expanding and a few more references from multiple sources.LordHarris 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article isn't written from the sources and is a crystal ball. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There is a lot more literature on a Chinese-American war than on an Iranian-American war, and the article doesn't seem to have much heft as it stands.  Possible this could change, but people have been writing about China-America for decades but seriously on Iran-America for only a few years.
 * I'll add that my participation here was solicited by Lee. As a comment, while it's perfectly reasonable to inform interested parties of an AfD, it's usually good form to inform everyone who was in a previous AfD if you do so; you seem to have informed only people who voted Keep on Sino-American War, which would skew results in this AfD and generally look bad. SnowFire 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for me I was not asked to come here: I saw the discussion, said that I thought it obviously notable, but also saw that it needed sources, and I went and added them. And then stopped--I did not ask anyone else.'  (Nor do I judge by such matters--I judge by the arguments, whoever it may be who makes them. I see that the others here, even if asked, are also expressing themselves independently DGG 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is, and has never been, an Iranian-American war. When there is, we can create an article. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Batmanand | Talk 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! 300 (film) was an Iranian-American media war! :P CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I suppose in the nature of things WP deletion policies cannot be absolute, this to me is textbook crystal-balling, no matter how you dress it up. Whatever has occurred between the United States and Iran thus far, it is not a "war" in any generally accepted sense and it would do violence to language to characterize it as a "war." Allon Fambrizzi 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * Strong delete. Any article that starts Many people have been considering the possibility of ..., as this article does, is about as clear an example of violating WP:NOT (a crystal ball) as is possible.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect to Plans for military attacks against Iran. Obvious WP:CRYSTAL. Stammer 07:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this is pure crystal-balling. No particular reason to list "predicted wars" unless they become reality. Better still, this article contains no reliable information as of yet on who is considering this war possible. User:Dimadick
 * Redirect as a feasible search term to plans for military attacks against Iran, which is a much better sourced and non-crystal ball article on what the creator of this article probably was looking for. Even if kept, this article will probably not be anything more than a duplicate. (Especially when both sides will, hopefully, end their tensions using diplomacy, but that's just my opinion.) Resurgent insurgent 14:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm still new to wikipedia so I wont vote. But I just want to say that the defenders of this article are right the issues here are IDENTICAL to thoose in the Sino-American War. Because of that I don't believe that this article should be kept, I propose that the Sino-American War Article be deleted. Everyone on this page should take a look at the Sino-American War article its even more of a travesty, and because not enough decent eitors noticed it at the first Afd is no reason why an article that clearly does not belong on wikipedia should be here!--Westolly 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC) — Westolly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  All edits of this user have been related to canvassing for this AfD. Resurgent insurgent 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  All edits of this user have been related to canvassing for this AfD. Resurgent insurgent 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC) " that really was a below the belt shot by resurgent considering his hypocritical stance to keep sino-american War and delete this page. And I havent canvassed people to come to this afd I simply requested that people who have already shown intrest in this Afd look into the Sino-american War article. I'm all for this article being deleted but I think the Sino-american war article which also clearly does not belong in wikipedia should be addressed. I don't know how any one can argue that a stronger case can be made for a US-China war over and Iran War. And as for my few edits I've acknowledged that which is why I did not vote here not attempt to start the deletion myself. I have only laid out my opinion. I'm all for a civil debate but dirty dishonest tactics just lower the honest disagreements into mudlslinging. --Westolly 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Westolly. As far as I can see, (s)he is acting in good faith. J Milburn 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Westolly, let us consider the facts that Resurgent insurgent had when reviewing your contributions history. Your very first edit references two AfD discussions: this and the AFD for "Sino-American War". In a subsequent edit you made reference to Deletion review. New users are generally unaquainted with AFD and even fewer know about DRV. Now, it is quite possible that you were simply responsible and/or knowledgeable enough to investigate Wikipedia's policies, in which case I both congratulate and thank you. However, Resurgent insurgent's comment is not exactly inaccurate. The fact is that you have made no edits outside this topic. Your other edits don't exactly constitute canvassing for this AFD, but rather the Sino-American War article. I do not dispute J Milburn that you are acting in good faith, but so is Resurgent insurgent. If this is just a misunderstanding, then let's treat it as such. Please note that Resurgent insurgent's did not directly accuse of acting in bad faith (canvassing can be a result of good-faith efforts, which I believe to be the case here) and I don't think you should accuse him of "dirty dishonest tactics". Cheers, Black Falcon 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that I had edited other articles. The first line I wrote was that I wasn't going to vote due to the fact I was new to wikipedia. I have made no effort to personally take action against the Sino-American article due to the fact that I acknowledge  I'm new. Thats the reason why I've contacted others who have more experiance to help me on this effort. I'm sorry if I offended resurgent, but he made it seems as though I was doing something pretty serious- according to WP rules a bannable offense, when I've been quite open about my aims. All I ask is that Sino-American war be held to the same standards this article is being held to. --Westolly 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct and that's why I believe you were and are acting in good faith. The canvassing charge is not entirely accurate; as you've pointed out, you contacted editors who had already participated in this AFD. Although cross-posting the same message in multiple places is generally discouraged, I doubt anyone would try to argue that your actions merit a ban (and I don't believe it was Resurgent's intention to suggest that). As regards the articles, Wikipedia is (for better or worse) not always consistent, and it seems likely that this article will be deleted. If you wish to renominate the Sino-American War article, you may of course do so; however, as it recently survived a deletion debate, it might be prudent to wait a few months. Alternately, you could take the matter to DRV, but DRV is usually reserved for issues of process (i.e., did the closing admin appropriately gauge consensus) rather than article-specific arguments. One final note. As AFD is not technically a vote, admins who close AFD discussions should consider the arguments involved and not just the bolded "keep" or "delete" statements. Thus, your comment will/should receive due consideration (being new to Wikipedia does not prevent you from participating fully in its processes). Cheers, Black Falcon 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research; this article takes various claims of military tension between the U.S. and Iran and blows this up into an "Iranian-American War," which has never happened and hopefully never will. By the way, I've moved Sino-American War to Potential military conflict between the United States and China because there is no such thing as the "Sino-American War." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, at least for now anyways, per WP:CRYSTAL. BlackBear 16:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, how can anyone give this a pass from the usual crystal-ball policy? Gazpacho 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOR and POV. If there is an article about the history of Iranian-American conflicts, merge any useful information there. Rackabello 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rackabello. --FateClub 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL Charles (Kznf) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stong Delete Ridiculous. There is no such war, its just a speculation that can be found in many articles already in wikipedia. Is it Wikipedia policy to write articles on things that don't exist? I don't know, I thought that it wasn't Wikipedia is not a crystal ball people.Tourskin 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per WP:CRYSTAL, massively POV. It means that articles such as British-Iranian War will be created.--WaltCip 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the plans article. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete there shouldn't be an article about an unnotable war that didn't occur.--Sefringle 22:32, 13 April 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.