Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility


 * 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 merge. Under the circumstances a merge seemed like the best result and the one that had the clearest consensus of this AfD. However, this does not mean that the material itself is that great--after all, it is based almost entirely on one source, with no confirmation from other sources of the significance of that source. It should probably be edited down. Chick Bowen 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article is not about the recent report in the Sunday Times that Israel is planning a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, rather it is an analysis of Israel's capability to launch such a strike. As it stands, this article needs to be deleted because of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article treats the alleged plan as something that Israel admits (i.e. frequent statements like "Israeli claims that..."), when in fact Israel claims that the Times piece is not accurate. The very title of the article asserts that Israel in fact did propose such a strike, which is completely POV. I removed the most obvious OR from the article, an assessment of the potential radioactive fallout, but the second section is also OR. If we have an article on this topic, it needs to be about the Sunday Times article, NOT about the allegedly proposed strike. It would need to be called something like Reports of an Israeli plan for a nuclear first-strike on the Natanz facility. The question then becomes, Is the Sunday Times piece notable? Policy is foggy here, there doesn't seem to be a specific notability guideline for current events and the general notability criteria really don't work (ANY current event is by definition going to have multiple published works about it. Personally, I don't think that a newspaper report that generated a few days worth of controversy but seems to have been otherwise ignored is at all notable. GabrielF 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Following this nom, the article has been completely rewritten to remove the original OR aspects from the article. For those interested, the original OR in the article is still accessible here.  --64.230.123.177 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is simply too speculative to possibly be encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the same crap that was on the Wikinews main page a few days ago (except over there, it was in the form of "Israel plans nuclear attack on Iran" or something like that). One speculative report is not enough for an encyclopedia article. --- RockMFR 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletion discussions. GabrielF 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge in Natanz with the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if this article were accurate, I'd say delete per WP:OR --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs editor review 03:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is partially source and three is additional information I mentioned on the talk page, such as the reputable European bank ING Group's financial predictions if such an attack were to occur: . I have included this on the Iran deletion sorting page.  --70.48.242.16 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've rewrite more than 80% of the article since GabrielF nominated it for deletion removing the OR and adding more on-topic non-OR citations. --70.48.242.16 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. See WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly reconfigure and rename as Natanz nuclear facility (since it's rather odd that we have this article but not that one). Article has been substantially improved. -- Visviva 05:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom: OR, POV, etc... Eusebeus 07:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that the source for this article is OR isn't going to stand up to any scrutiny -- it is your and GabrielF's interpretation of OR that is highly original. The article in its current state (following my rewrite) is not OR.  --64.230.123.177 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - we can't justify having an article for every news story that appears in the press, no matter how interesting. I'd say that when news sources cross the line from reporting the news to analysis and creating theories on possible future events, it changes from being a reliable source to original research and should be avoided like the plague. --Kind Regards - Heligo  land  09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that the source for this article is OR isn't going to stand up to any scrutiny -- it is your and GabrielF's interpretation of OR that is highly original. The article in its current state (following my rewrite) is not OR.  --64.230.123.177 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the content has been much improved. There are still some problems. The article needs to be renamed, for one thing and the opening sentence needs to be changed from "Media reports..." to "A (date) report in the Sunday Times..." or something similar. I'm not sure voting to delete purely on the basis of OR is appropriate at this point. However, the question of notability still stands. This is more of a problem with the wiki not having clear standards of which current events are notable than any problem with the article itself. By the way, I would like to respond to a comment you left on my talk page, which IP should I respond to? GabrielF 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page does require renaming, but as an IP user I am unable to. You can response at your talk page, on this page or on the article talk page. --64.230.123.177 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to move the page if we can agree on a good title. The problem is that the title needs to reflect that this is a reported plan and it is difficult to do this without getting too wordy. One possibility is to name the article Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - the title of the Times article. Lets discuss it on the article's talk page. GabrielF 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to your comment on my talk page. GabrielF 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Among other issues, the notability of such an article can only be evaluated historically, after a significant passage of time. If no strike takes place, history will forget this article and the allegedly proposed strike very quickly.  If a strike does take place, that historic event will be notable and only retrospectively will the Times piece gain a sort of notability.zadignose 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete to original synthesis.-- danntm T C 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per no-crystal-ball policy. Imagine this article 5 or 10 years from now: if the described scenario never happens, the article is useless. GregorB 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have proposed on the article talk page for the contents to be merged into the existing article on Natanz, per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s suggestion above. The sources in the current version of the article are high quality, the only issue seems to be its long term viability/notability. I think this is a viable compromise. --64.230.123.177 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete We are not a crystal ball, or a place to propose ideas. /Blaxthos 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (or rename). the article doesnt looks like OR. They are taken from verifiable sources. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep current version, though I would also support merging with Natanz as suggested above. I don't know what this article looked like when the AFD was first posted, but it seems like a reasonable, well-sourced article with relatively little POV (though I can see areas for improvement). The lead needs work, although it's fine as the start of a section within the Natanz article. The key to this are the sources, which are considered reputable. Obviously the article will need to be revisited when and if the report turns out to be disproven, or if such an attack occurs. 23skidoo 06:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename the article into something NPOV and factual. --Aminz 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge in Natanz the article relates to facts. ---Palestine48 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. This article for deletion has been updated dramatically since first nominated, and does not violate Original Research or NPOV.  It has caused global reaction and coverage, so this isn't pure speculation either.  If, however, it is decided not to keep it as is, I would recommend merging it with an article I have written covering all reported plans to strike Iran, Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program.  Joshdboz 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I support this proposal. It would be a good fit here but a very poor fit in natanz which is primarily about the (historically interesting) town itself.


 * Delete per nomination Shrike 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Move to something more appropriate.Bless sins 03:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOT.Proabivouac 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the article before voting?can you give me an example of original research? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Natanz.  ITAQALLAH   07:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the Sunday Times article is real, and it has gained international attention. Editorial issues are not arguments to delete an entire article. Rename if necessary, edit were necessary, but keep the info.--Striver - talk 15:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As the originator of the article, the intention was to use these unfolding events as an illustrative case study of the more general concept of nuclear preemption. I note that nuclear preemption does not seem to have been dealt with yet on wikipedia which is a pity since it is an important aspect of nuclear deterance which is clearly becoming more relevant due to the inevitable march of technology. I have proposed that the original article be merged into Plans_for_strikes_against_the_Iranian_nuclear_program which should in term be linked to from nuclear preemption as an illustrative case study. This move would deal with the article name being POV which, I agree, is inappropriate. In its current form the article does not violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV or WP:NOT. I strongly disagree with your opinion that "Personally, I don't think that a newspaper report that generated a few days worth of controversy but seems to have been otherwise ignored is at all notable." in that a potential aggresive nuclear first strike is clearly a major event in human history .... potentially only the third to be precise. I also find it interesting that you hold this opinion and yet have contributed such articles as July_2006_Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting, which would seemingly also be inappropriate by your standards. LochVoil 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between this and July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting is that one actually happened while the other is a newspaper article. A nuclear strike is a major event in human history. A plan for a nuclear strike is not. A report of a plan of a nuclear strike id definitely not. Further, Wikipedia is not the place to "use... unfolding events as an illustrative case study" of anything. That's original research. GabrielF 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are claming that wikipedia should not contain articles on potential events that have not yet happened? I suggest you read more of wikipedia which will soon disabuse you of this notion. Wikipedia has many articles that relate to circumstances that have not yet come about. One pertinent example being Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, which all parties currently agree has not yet happened but which many experts assert is likely to happen. Speculation on Iranian nuclear weapons has been wide spread in "newspaper articles" which, despite your implication that this renders the subject matter unworthy for inclusion into wikipedia, has resulted in a substantial article on (as yet non existent) Iranian nuclear weapons (including numerous media quotes): Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction. Leaving aside the high relevance of the article in question here to the theory of nuclear preemption, risks of nuclear bunker busters and israeli-iranian-american political relations for the moment: Even when using the criterion of relative probability of a potential event as the basis for deciding whether to include it in wikipedia, the event in question here scores highly:
 * Israel has stated categorically that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
 * Experts assert that the Natanz facility is invulnerable to conventional attack, a view I share given my own particular professional expertise.
 * Experts assert that there is a high probability that Iran will attempt to develop nuclear weapons in the short term.
 * The history of diplomatic relations between Israel, the USA and Iran are, in my opinion, not encouraging to the prospects of a peaceful settlement.
 * Finally, I find your preemptive blanket claim that the use of examples within (as-yet-uncreated) wikipedia articles unequivocally constitutes original research spurious and nonsensical. LochVoil 16:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT says that "...expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is not, I trust, the case. Choess 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Notice that this is not an article about a "future event", but instead about a specific military plan and the reaction to it. Joshdboz 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is an article about a newspaper report of a specific plan and the reaction to it. GabrielF 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't know if you're being serious or funny, but you are certainly correct. Joshdboz 18:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Selective qouting of a snippet of a policy document does not do much to bolster your case. I would suggest a re-read of the contents of WP:NOT.LochVoil 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it is clear that the SUNDAY TIMES ARTICLE itself, the furor it has caused, and the implications of its allegations are certainly highly notable, but the article as written is only speculation based upon the Sunday Times' allegation. If the article is renamed to something along the lines of "2007 Sunday Times article on Plans for Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility", much of the current information on its military and technical implications and human cost could stay but it would be in addition to the context of the article itself, theories as whether the leak was sincere or saber-rattling, the international response, etc. If we are given more reason in the coming months to think that Israel is infact planning on a nuclear first strike on Iran, than I think the article could and should return to its present form. AlexeiSeptimus 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:BALLS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:LAUNDRY. Morton DevonshireYo  23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Morton Devonshire. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * strong delete as per OR, and non-factual basis. Maybe's aren't good enough --Isolani 14:00, 22 January 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.