Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perceptions of the United States sanctions


 * 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 redirect to United States sanctions. Consensus merge, I'll redirect so that the content can be easily accessed. Tone 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Perceptions of the United States sanctions

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Delete. This article is a WP:SYNTH WP:COATRACK that overlaps with United States sanctions, Effectiveness of economic sanctions, Sanctions against Iraq and perhaps several other topics but bounces around all over the place without a single source that discusses (or even defines) the ostensible topic. While AfD is not clean-up, it is notable that the creator relies almost exclusively (in descending order of credibility) on linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky, the libertarian Cato Institute think tank, and Max Blumenthal (editor of the WP:FRINGE deprecated source The Grayzone) as the main sources for the article (with lengthy blockquotes and close paraphrasing to boot); it is unclear how a neutral search procedure would have generated those three sources as essential to understanding economic sanctions. To be fair, the lede is an acceptable overview of United States sanctions and perhaps should be merged if it contains any non-duplicative content, but after that Perceptions of the United States sanctions devolves into a barely-coherent mess: The Double standards section confusingly lists Iraq and Libya without explaining or defining the "double standards" in question (while tediously reproducing debunked disinformation dubbed "a spectacular lie" by The Washington Post regarding the humanitarian effects of Sanctions against Iraq); the Protecting Israel section (with Chomsky as the sole source) appears to be condemning the lack of U.S. sanctions against Israel ("still there was no call for any sanctions against Israel or even a call for a reduction in unconditional military and economic aid to Israel"); and the Economic engagement as an alternative to sanctions section (based largely on CATO) is... interesting, but totally disconnected from the rest of the article. To be honest, I was initially expecting something akin to Public opinion on United States sanctions, which may or may not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but "Perceptions of the United States sanctions" is a glorified user essay critiquing U.S. foreign policy in a subjective, WP:POV fashion, with a primary (but by no means exclusive) focus on sanctions. It's not really a distinct topic for an article. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The article released yesterday, so it would take me some time to improve it. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This page does not really qualify for TNT but I think it would largely benefit from having a significant edit through to see if the page can be made into something encyclopedic. The topic is itself notable with there being numerous protests against US Sanctions and even there have even been 29 consecutive nearly unanimous UN Resolution related to the United States' embargo of Cuba. This page could exist but in a different form than the way it currently exists. I will go through and see what I can do. TartarTorte 14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Public opinion on United States sanctions or International opinion on United States sanctions may be a notable topic, but that's plainly not what this article is about. Narrowing the scope to that topic would, in fact, effectively require WP:TNT or deletion to remove the cobbled-together WP:SYNTH.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already rearranged sections to what I think is more reasonable. But as you wrote above it should be written in an encyclopedic manner.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Merge With United States sanctions - I see no reason why this can't be a section within the main article - makes sense from a navigational viewpoint. Both articles are well under the size limit. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with United States Sanctions, material is relevent and well sourced. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2022 (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.