Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plans for military attacks against Iran


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Plans for military attacks against Iran

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another attempt to turn WP into a sensationalist weasely tabloid/blog/unencyclopedic review of phony news. I hope there is not going to be Plans for military attacks by Iran in the making. I marked it as a fiction, please recategorize as appropriate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Del as nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DeletePer nom. Fictional stuff like this is why critics are always razzing wikipedia. Felixboy 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my, maybe we should add WP is neither Indymedia nor OhmyNews to WP:NOT. The NPOV violations would most likely make this inappropriate for Wikinews and, I think, they certainly make the article inappropriate for WP. Parts of this article read like an essay masquerading as a news article masquerading as an encyclopedic entry, while others are just pure speculation (usually backed up by sources that seem a little suspect to me). In general, I don't even see how this article could be appropriate: it's speculation about the details of an armed conflict that is, at this time, just as purely speculative.


 * It boils down to 'Country A has done B which could mean C. If that's indeed the case -and your guess is as good as our's- it might mean D. Or it might not.' Take, for instance, the section about the mobilization of troops: that could, theoretically, indicate preparations or it could mean something entirely different (tactical reasons, close air support for missions in Iraq, scheduled (re-)deployment) or nothing at all. The point is we just don't know and since the military isn't exactly in the habit of publicly discussing tactical aspects of operations that may not ever be carried out, it's not very likely that there will be any reliable sources unless this conflict actually escalates and turns into a full-scale war. I think this sentence is quite telling: "According to the Editor-in-Chief of the Arab Times, the Bush administration has decided that it must act against Iran before April 2007" and illustrates the difference between sources and 'reliable sources'. To make a long argument very, very short: delete. -- Seed 2.0 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The lead is basically an essay decrying dangerous Western imperialism, failing NPOV, and much of the rest of the article fails the Crystal Ball test of WP:NOT, See point 3. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." (emphasis in original) This is a decent article for a partisan website, but not for an encyclopedia. IronDuke  13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a political rant with no attempt to be balanced. It's crystal ball nonsense. Nick mallory 15:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An OR essay. If this one is allowed, I'm going to write one entitled: "America's Best Little Inns and Hotels."--Mantanmoreland 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculative, original research, violating NPOV, no good.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. It also should be noted that the article United States-Iran relations already covers this subject but in a more balanced and less speculative manner.  In fact some of the same sources used here also appear there (and some of the material in the other article may be problematic for the same reasons cited above, but there it can be dealt with in the context of editing the article.  This one should simply be deleted.)  6SJ7 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:NOT all violated by this huge mess. Other than that, it's well written. If it's not salted, it will most likely return. Horologium talk - contrib 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm usually very hesitant with calls for salting but in this case, I have to admit it's worth thinking about. Perhaps a protected redirect to United States-Iran relations? -- Seed 2.0 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The possibility of an attack against Iran by the US, Israel, or both has been repeatedly discussed in reliable sources, which have been cited in the article. 2008 Republican presidential candidates and other prominent figures have advocated such an attack. The deletion arguments here mostly amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The possibility of an attack is covered already, by United States-Iran relations. This article, while copiously sourced, has issues with the reliability of several of them, as well as the other problems I noted in my vote. ZMag, Alternet, Huffington Post, Panoptic World, and Raw Story cannot be considered reliable sources, and the two editorials from a college newspaper really don't cut it either. Eliminating the material from those would eviscerate this article, and that is where WP:OR and WP:SYN come into play. Please don't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a club to bludgeon the views of others. Horologium talk - contrib 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to add one point to Horologium's well-reasoned response: the article isn't about the international conflict or about the nuclear weapons issue. We already have articles that deal with that. It's speculation about plans for military attack. I highly doubt that a Presidential Candidate has commented on that since I can't think of any candidate who would even be privy to such information (let alone one who would be willing to discuss national security matters in public). They may have been talking about the conflict in general (I assume you're not just referring to Senator McCain's rendition of the Beach Boys song) but certainly not about specific plans. And even if they had, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Relevant content doesn't magically turn all the irrelevant, POV-pushing, inadequately sourced content in an article into okay content. -- Seed 2.0 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - the propensity of Wikipedia to attract well-sourced, and will-written, POV-pushing original research always amazes me. --Haemo 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a vote to keep could be understood as a violation of WP:point - since this article is a prime example of complete fiction written like an encyclopedia article. keeping it in will cause wikipedia will look bad. all those who voted keep please reconsider...... Zeq 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete You sure said it, Haemo. Jtrainor 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a clear violation of WP:NOT. IZAK 06:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nearly everybode else above; lots of good and thoughtful arguments. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom Isarig 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --Sefringle 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Horologium, perhaps redirecting per Seed 2.0,  Tewfik Talk 03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a notable topic simply because it has been the subject of notable speculation and investigation. Lots and lots of it. The article simply reports things that have already been said/published in the past, with sources. That is precisely the opposite of original research or telling the future. I'm very surprised by the number of delete voters. The title might be best changed to "alleged plans" or something like that, but there is no policy problem with this article. Everyking 09:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you said it yourself: speculation. That's what this article is. Just because something can be sourced (and the first part of RS is a bit problematic in more than a few cases), doesn't mean it warrants having an article on WP. I could write a convincing essay about the clear superiority of chocolate ice cream over strawberry-flavored ice cream and source it like there's no tomorrow (might even be able to turn up some RS) but that still wouldn't make it appropriate for WP. -- Seed 2.0 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What? We're talking about speculation in major publications about a potential war, not your favorite kind of ice cream. Notable, sourced speculation is perfectly good article content. Everyking 11:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not speculation about a potential war (we have articles that deal with that in an appropriate manner). Speculation about plans for military attack. There can by definition not be such a thing as a RS about alleged plans for a military attack unless such contingency plans have leaked (which they have not). This article isn't about the war or Iran's nuclear program -- it's specifically about plans for attack. Most of the sources the article cites offer nothing but unfounded speculation or are used to make such speculation look sourced. Let me use a hyperbole to explain my point: yes, the President has ordered a carrier group to the region (cite 1). Yes, that may have something to do with a potential war against Iran. (Or it may not.) Air craft carriers tend to carry aircraft and bombs (cite 2). From a purely strategical point of view, one would expect the military to use bomb A against a against target B (cite 3, article that says that much). The USAF has lots of Type A bombs (cite 4). Thus, 1+2+3+4 = conclusive proof that America is out to destroy Iran!!!1!! That's what this is, with a sizeable portion of NPOV thrown in for good measure. And, yes, I feel it's about as appropriate as an essay about my favorite ice cream flavor. -- Seed 2.0 12:01, 21 May 2007 (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.