Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-Rouhani phone call


 * 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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Obama-Rouhani phone call

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A telephone call is not sufficiently notable to justify an entire standalone article. The conversation can be described adequately in one or two sentences in articles about the participants or in articles concerning the countries in question. — O'Dea (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree for the time being on the basis of notability and WP:recentism. Also telling that there isn't a single other article on a diplomatic phone call. Interested to hear other views though... Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is obviously a significant event, but it's not that important by itself, and should be able to be covered in a paragraph in the Iran–United States relations article. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I would think the article deals with an eventful phone call. Many news media have alluded to it in large-scale. The call phone was the first title in many papers and some polls got done after that. Alborzagros (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been many telephone calls in the past that were much more historic that do not have their own articles: the very first call by Alexander Graham Bell; calls between Kennedy and Khrushchev that prevented a nuclear world war in 1962; the only telephone call ever made to the surface of the moon by Nixon; the call by Frank Wills that exposed the Watergate scandal. The amount of coverage of Obama's call does not make it deserve a whole article in Wikipedia. It can be described in one or two sentences in other articles. Newspapers and encyclopaedias are not the same.  — O'Dea  (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment this event is already adequately described in Iran–United States relations. — O'Dea  (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - if it was important, say so at Iran–United States relations, but there doesn't seem to be a need to document individual diplomatic phone conversations. As was pointed out above, we haven't documented other (arguably far more important) phone calls. Being included in the appropriate diplomacy article with some context probably does it more justice anyway. Oh, and WP:NOTNEWS. Stalwart 111  10:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * delete per RECENTISM. It is however notable and the space can go on either the Rouhani or Obama pages.Lihaas (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt if it needs to be mentioned at the Obama or Rouhani articles; time will tell. The fact that the event is described at Iran–United States relations is a proper response for an encyclopaedia until a broader perspective emerges in time. — O'Dea  (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:CHEAP to Iran–United States relations. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I'd be willing to change my mind with a good argument, so get back to us here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CHEAP should be nominated for deletion. Anything that begins, "There should be an essay here, and it should say something similar to what is currently on WP:RFD" does not elicit respect. It is half-arsed and lazy nonsense. — O'Dea  (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2013 (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.