Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria


 * 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. The consensus is that this presidential memorandum is not significant enough to warrant a standalone encyclopedia article at this time. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be about a memo asking for a plan and that's the only thing here that is not OR. The entire foreign coordination part refers to discussions about terrorism and ISIS without any reference to an overall plan to defeat them or any connection to this memo. We can't possibly include articles on every memo signed by a head of state and should wait until such a plan exists and is discussed by reliable sources. regentspark (comment) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As I have argued elsewhere, we cannot have an article on every statement, memorandum, executive action, and policy that every world leader announces. There is no evidence that this particular item has any lasting significance, nor that it needs a standalone article. In addition, there are serious problems with synthesis. Vanamonde (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot be saved even if the OR is cleared up. Presidents routinely issue hundreds of executive orders and memoranda, and precedent is that only those of exceptional importance (e.g. Executive Order 9066) merit a standalone article. No reliable source appears to suggest anything near that level of importance for this memo. Layzner (Talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not Wikipedia's job to document every document ever written. Even if this wasn't WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I also agree we should not have a whole new article every time a world leader signs a piece of paper. People seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the above reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete--For all the above reasons. Winged Blades Godric 14:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and for reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the above. Presidents sign hundreds of executive orders. Only the most notable attract sufficient coverage to warrant their own articles. This isn't one of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - the foreign policy of a president may be suitable for an article. A notable aspect of that policy may as well. This doesn't achieve either level. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:SNOW. It's so remotely removed from an actual plan or a real law as to be useless and confusing to our readers. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON — JFG talk 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS - No need for a new article every time Trump scratches his head, is there? Exemplo347 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment : Hi, I have added recent update of content in relation to the article, along with a source, as with diff, I would wish to know, how can we improve it?, thanks. Junosoon (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

just to add a comment, the two sections of memo read a)  It is the policy of the United States that ISIS be defeated, and b)  Policy Coordination, so the parts of foreign coordination, related to ISIS''', can be possibly covered in the article, as they are part of memo. Please share your thoughts. Junosoon (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC). Reference.
 * Delete per what everyone else has mentioned. This isn't significant enough to warrant its own article yet and can probably be mentioned in Trump's presidential article if it isn't already. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to go with weak keep since the plan that was supposed to be drafted according to the memorandum is supposed to find itself on the desk of Trump within just over three weeks, and potentially, potentially might break new ground in terms of that war, so it's conceivable that the article might be returned to or even recreated if deleted, but the suggestions towards deletion are overwhelming, so I guess this is rather a comment. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:32, 10 February 2017 (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.