Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil 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 keep as renamed/expanded. Issues remaining with the neutrality of the article are not the purview of AfD. BD2412 T 00:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks a bot ORy to me, firstly this is not NATO, its some NATO members. It seems much of the "support" is just standard arms sales. References to "Coalition" air strikes (what coalition?) Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The article name was changed during the AfD to Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War per the split proposal.-SharabSalam (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The content of this article was split from Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen per the discussion on that talk page, as it was very large. I don't think an AfD process is the best way to deal with this if you're objecting to the name. The support is mostly the selling of military equipment, which is certainly notable and worthy of being documented in Wikipedia. Would you consider withdrawing your AfD and we can see if the issues can be resolved otherwise? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its too large because it is rambling about all over the place, talking about arms sales, intel, votes in congress. Its a badly written POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean the article it was split from, if you can get the size down then we could possibly merge this article back in, but these are not grounds for deleting it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is it is such a mess nuking it and starting for scratch would seem to be the best idea.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The connection between the article contents and NATO is really coincidental. Might be better off being split up into separate United States involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and United Kingdom involvement in the Yemeni Civil War articles? --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe but I also think much of this is not even about involvement in the war.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not going to assume bad faith but the editor who created that article was opposing this split. It could be that he named it NATO involvement so that it gets deleted. The consensus in the talk page was to split the article to Western involvement in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen or foreign involvement not NATO. In fact, there is not a single mention of NATO in the article discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant, as there are more problems here than just the name. We almost have a list of every US action (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the U.S. involvement in the war against Yemen is widely covered in the media. The name is almost the only problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It may well have been, that does not mean that every incident or comment needs to be here. This article suffers from huge bloat about trivial or irrelevant matters that really have nothing to do with actual US intervention.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can discuss this in the article talk page. This isn't a deletion reason. The foreign involvement is well-sourced and the controversies surround it are all well-sourced and notable. I am going to split the article and add this stuff to the new article. I also don't understand your merely subjective argument? How are these trivial? I don't think they are trivial and I am a Yemeni and I have much contributed to that area.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They are trivial because they tell us nothing about intervention, they are just a catalog of incidents. Please do not create another POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete (ec) Looks like WP:Pointy. The consensus in the talk page was to split to Foreign involvement in the Yemeni civil war not NATO.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as has been said this is more to do with standard arms sales from some countries and not direct involvement in the war by either them and certainly not NATO. Appears to cobbled together to make a point but but nothing shows any direct connection in military action and could be considered misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and note per WP:HEY. I have changed the title to Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and added the other parties involvement. As I said above there was no agreement or even a mention in the talk page to split the article to NATO involvement. The editor who created this article was opposing the split and this split seems like WP:Pointy just to make it hard to split the article to the foregin involvement. I have fixed the issue by adding the Arab coalition involvemnet and adding the allegation of Iranian involvement so I think the issue is now fixed. The main article was over 400 Kilo bytes. This split is needed. Just like we have Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War or Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note it is not good practice to change the name of an article while the AfD is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I remember Articles for deletion/Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory when the article was going to get deleted just because of its name and the editor changed the title while the AfD is still open(the editor is an admin BTW). Changing the title per the split discussion in the talk page to avoid the deletion is an improvement. The editor who created the article probably wanted it to get deleted which is why he created it with such POV title so that any attempt to split the article would be refused because of the previous deletion.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith in others, as you can see from the discussion the article has a lot more issues than just the use of NATO in the title. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All this does in reinforce my view this article is a POV fork to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which I have fixed. In any case, there was no discussion or proposal to split the article to NATO. This itself is disruptive editing when there is a split discussion and somone goes and split the article regardless of the discussion and without even mentioning the title in the talk page. What the editor did was absolutely disruptive.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All I would suggest reasons for delete until a decision has been made as to what this fork is supposed to be about.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I feel like you arent well-informed about the subject you are talking about? the foregin involvement in the war against Yemen is well-sourced and there are tons of coverage about it in the media. The U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition has made a lot of controveries. A lot of U.S. politicians have been accoused of being puppets in the hands of Saudi rich kings. Also, in France there are leaks etc and invastigations google it, and in the UK there is a court decision to ban arm sales to Saudi-led coalition but yet the arm sales continoued despite the court rule google it. Note that all of this is not yet in the article and I wasnt able to add it to the previous article because it was already above 400 kilo bytes.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a an obvious POV-Fork. Despite ostensibly being about "Foreign involvement" in the civil war, there is not one word in it about the support the Houtis are gettign from Iran. It seems this was purposely created to bash one side. Here come the Suns (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually there is, but it is not couched in quite the same way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That just means the title is wrong, because the content only concerns American and British involvement. The problem is clearly the title, not the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Delete due to lack of neutrality, per Wiki's article: Neutral point of view Factlibrary1 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Question You have multiple times now claimed I have opposed the split. Can you show where I have expressed opposition? If you cannot do so, please withdraw these claims. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , first, tell me when and where did you discuss the split to NATO involvement?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the title itself, I didn't discuss that. I split the article to a neutral title, and further discussion can take place regarding what the title should be. There was consensus to split the article but significant disagreement on the title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the NATO involvement was a neutral title?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the context of disagreement over the title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , notice that you havent voted keep or delete. Doesnt seem strange?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the AfD should be abandoned entirely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Messy Keep The essential problem we have is that people have written a ton of content about UK and US involvement in the Yemeni Civil War. The content isn't exactly perfect either, but its got decent sources behind it so I don't think it rises to WP:TNT levels. We can't put it back in the (already lengthy) main article, the level of detail would be seriously WP:UNDUE. Calling it NATO involvement was outright wrong. Now its been renamed Foreign involvement, which is at least a notable topic. There's still a bunch of NPOV, UNDUE and scope problems (what do we do about Saudi Arabia's involvement?) and I don't believe this is the right solution. However the article has had its current scope for >2 days. No prejudice to renomination if it doesn't improve. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As most of the article could be pruned as it is about arms sales and nothing to do with the "foreign involvement" the few lines that are left could be added to the parent article but it would be easier just to delete this misleading mess. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination has not mentioned any policy-based rationale for deletion. Subject meets WP:GNG and content issues should be resolved on talk page. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that the content is misleading and has nothing to do with "involvement" per WP:BOLLOCKS. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wp:OR was mentioned. I thne go on to point out I think it is a wp:POV wp:fork.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Saudi/Iranian involvement in the conflict is easily established by reliable sources. Under the current title (which has been changed from "NATO involvement" to "Foreign involvement") we have a clearly notable subject about which it is possible to produce neutral, encyclopedic content. Cleanup should be handled the usual way. Dartslilly (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2020 (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.