Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian oil bourse


 * 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 There is sufficient arguments from established users in order to keep the article with few in favor of deletion. -- JForget 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Iranian oil bourse

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wiki is Not Crystal Ball. When the actual Iranian Oil Bourse is opened (which after 3 delays is not really that clear when) then the article should be written with sources about what actually exists, not what is proposed to exist. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Crystal referred to when you make use of unsourced predictions, sourced information about when something is expected to happen is okay isn't it? Also the past history of its failure might be enough to give it some notability. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest point 1 at WP:CRYSTAL would be an appropriate reason, that whilst it might be notable if it existed, it's continually failure to actually exist drops it below the "almost certain to take place" required for a crystal ball article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant to this whole discussion, since it specifically applies to events. The IOB is not an event.  It's a proposed institution, and the idea of this institution may merit an article regardless of whether or not it actually ever comes to fruition. -- anonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Although there are lots of citations, they are all very speculative, and cannot be classed as reliable. The lack of a firm opening date and the lack of a secondary oil market, plus the lack of firm evidence that projected contract volume will be significant leaves me unconvinced this will be a notable event per WP:CRYSTAL. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the large number of references indicates that the idea of the bourse is significant and notable, whether or not it comes to fruition. Also we have a whole category for places that haven't been built yet: see Category:Proposed buildings. Cop 663 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nicely referenced article clearly indicates that the proposed market has not opened; it has, nevertheless been planned and announced for quite some time by the Iranian government.  The bourse itself does not have to ever exist as a present reality to become worthy of an article; after all, there's been talk of building a Nicaragua Canal since the nineteenth century, and there ain't one yet.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is properly referenced and is a handy place for information about the topic.  There is no requirement that everything in Wikipedia exist: cue articles about minutiae of fictional universes like Star Wars, Star Trek and various anime.  Moreover, unlike these topics, there is significant media attention to the idea of a Euro denominated trading place for oil -- whether one is ever actually created.  Comments by Gavin Collins above about the unreliability of references contained in the article are themselves unsubstantiated and should be discounted.  --Ott2 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The amount of coverage in reliable sources is substantial and establishes notability. Regardless of whether it actually happens or not, an article on the proposal and what happens to it is certainly valid. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous sources directly from Iranian ministers and other officials involved with the plans to build the IOB, there's a source from Chris Cook, former director of the International Petroleum Exchange in London. So the plan to build the IOB is well referenced. The Nicaragua Canal article referred to above is a good example showing that just because a planned institution/construction has not yet been created yet, that does not make it non-notable. Boud (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether the bourse eventually opens or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the topic is notable. It unquestionably is. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, something has to exist before it can be considered "notable". It's had a long enough time as a "future" site, now that it has missed 4 deadlines, I suggest the article be deleted until something actually happens Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not based on existence, but on whether the thing has been noted. It surely has. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This webpage should absolutely not be deleted. It pertains to an area of knowledge and study... well worth knowing about for that matter. There is no reason at all to conceal, hide, or destroy (remove and forget) information on this topic (or any topic for that matter). Specifically, I am concerned that anyone would want to remove info on this particular entry and am suspicious of motives to do so. To omit pertinent knowledge is to skew the story; and the story of the Iranian Oil Bourse and it's attempted creation may well become a centerpiece in this segment of our worlds history. Let us continue to check the facts, learn from what is going on, and build up a knowledge base, correcting errors as we progress. Let us not "throw away" entire topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.153 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)  — 165.91.13.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Excuse me? You are accusing me of bad faith? On what grounds? I want to "throw away" this topic because it's an Crystal Ball article with very little foundation (just like the proposed site of the exchange hah). Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It has a very strong foundation in reliable sources. It is not a crystal ball article as you keep saying, it is about a real concept that has been reported. Why are you attempting to put this in with a policy aimed at sporting events? Ans e ll  22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is an important page, detailing some important information, especially given the fiber cables being cut causing Iran to lose connectivity. People rely on sources like wikipedia to draw important correlations between articles like this and events of that nature.  71.61.186.160 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What does Internet submarine cables being cut by a ship's anchor have to do with an "Oil Burse"? Nothing. That's what.
 * Comment Iran never lost connectivity. The assertions that it did were based on a page on Internet Traffic Report showing a single router in Iran as currently being unreachable. Unfortunately, this has been trotted around blogs as "proof" that Iran has been disconnected from the Internet. Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, this is completely and provably false. See here for proof. Also, Iran has missed several of its own deadlines to open the Bourse, and the really hilarious thing is how many folks seem to think this is going to be a runaway success. There is a lot more at play in world oil markets other than being able to use the dollar or other currencies, and there is very little reason to believe the Iranian bourse will even be successful. It's interesting, and a great propaganda and rhetoric tool for Iran, but that's about it. das (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Strong Keep" This page should be kept because it is an important part of history, negotiations and proposals.  People need to be informed about what is going on and this page helps fulfill that.  Why attempt to censor such information?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahtrainer (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Censor? It is not an important part of anything. It does not even exist yet. Macktheknifeau (talk)


 * Keep, though I feel like we could avoid this entire discussion by renaming the article, "Iranian oil bourse proposal". After all, no one can deny that the proposal exists and has been pursued through various well-documented stages. This article, then, documents the notable efforts to establish the bourse, regardless of whether those efforts bear fruit. If or when the bourse comes into existence, this article could be folded in as a History section to that article. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep!! This is a political game that is being played.  We should be aware of it.  If nothing else, it brings to light the delicate nature of the United States' control of current events.  This is important, because it's the first time in ages that we're "on the ropes".  We should all be aware.  Call it the proposal if you want.  Then, when it's online, drop "proposal". 72.183.192.220 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC) //signed// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.192.220 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. What we call the article does not really matter.  If it is generally known as the Iranian oil bourse we do not need to add "proposal" in the title, but should make very clear that's what it is.  Projects under development are often covered for being simply that, a project under development.  Whether it succeeds or fails it is well reported and thus adds an important piece of context for understanding Iran, world oil markets, regional and global politics, finance, etc.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia isn't a place for highly speculative or wishful future predictions, but there are hundreds of articles for significant plans, Category:Building projects in particular.  This is something that has hired staff and spent money, not some vague "maybe someday".  71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The reasons sighted for deletion do not match the Crystal Ball provisions. It is an actual project that has started. The call for deletion appears to reflect personal or geo-political bias. 05:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleske (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep. Not only is this a real institution which is being sponsored by a country, it is also quuite possibly the reason for a coming war between Iran and the U.S.A. People have to a right to know why they are dying and killing, it sure isn't for the reasons that the politicans are claiming. If I see this article removed, I won't be donating to Wikimedia ever again. Whatever the admins personal preferences and views are should be irrelavent. The fact is that this exchange is already planned to open and will do so if the dollar stays weak is reason enough to keep it. Scott Kuehne (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The significance of this article is not purely determined whether this bourse will ever succeed or not. The very attempt to create is of major political significance. Both with respect to the US-Iran conflict and the discussion over Dollar or Euro traded oil. We should definitely keep this article. Even if the bourse WILL fail. It would then be turned into a useful historical document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeschter (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No reference to reliable sources in the nomination. An event or institution can be preceded by reliable sources and have a legitimate article. Ans e ll  22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong, Speedy keep. Article is properly referenced and deals with a topic of great importance to international politics and economy - even if the bourse doesn't open, it deserves an article just because it was seriously proposed. Kwertii (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is fairly well written and provides lots of references. The subject is undoubtedly worth its own article in my opinion. Cacetudo (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find another article about speculation, but no one proposed cancellation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever Which is more probable of the two? . Anonymous, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.232.84 (talk)
 * Keep. Wikipedia should not have articles for things until they actually happen? Better go submit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture for deletion too then. Anonymous, 11 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.89.209 (talk)


 * 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.