Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil Interests and Anglo-American Foreign Policy


 * 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oil Interests and Anglo-American Foreign Policy
I doubt the possibility of an NPOV article at this title. I think the title frames matters in a way that guarantees POV (including simply the phrase "Anglo-American Foreign Policy"). Certainly the current article is highly POV (e.g. "There have been criticisms on the real motives of the United States and Britain to intervene in Iraq.Critics point out that fact that the only Iraqi government ministry that was not attacked was the oil ministry.The involvement of Halliburton in the Iraq has provided credibility to these charges," all this in Wikipedia's narrative voice, without clear citation (there is a lengthy set of ostensible references at the bottom of the article, but the current state of the article does not suggest something that has particularly used these references). I'd love to have someone prove me wrong and bring it toward NPOV—I'd probably settle for a few experienced Wikipedians promising a rescue—but I suspect that anything substantive here should simply be merged elsewhere. Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see some troubles with the article's neutrality (I am sure many will dispute that the motivations for the coups and actions presented were based purely on oil), and the article seems redundant with articles such as Petroleum politics which is more balanced article. This article may well be an accidental content fork. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Oil interests are only one of a large number of factors involved in the incidents described in the article. Article gives a different impression. Better to just chunk it and let the articles on individual countries/encounters explain the complexities. HumbleGod 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV slightly disputed.-- Tdxi an  g  07:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no way this could ever be NPOV. This hasn't been touched by its creator in a little more than a week. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Essay rather than encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Oddly using "Anglo-American" to mean either UK or US. Thus references to Vietnam, Falklands and Venezuela. Often a mix of conspiracy theories and weasel words. e.g.: "There have been claims that the British interest in invading the Falkland Islands was not only to eject Argentinian troops but to protect British interests in underwater oil reserves near the Falkland Islands." - if that's true then they've waited a long time to start drilling --IslaySolomon 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this in the same way that all the other POV oil essays get deleted, optionally redirect to Petroleum politics. MLA 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --TJive 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 23:38, 9 July 2006 (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.