Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for war 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 no consensus. I do however strongly recommend that this be combined with the article about Opposition to war with with Iran and give the combined article some NPOV title (like Support and Opposition to the War with Iran). JoshuaZ 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Support for war against Iran

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is a hopeless case of US-centric views and can never be npov. It was a candidate for speedy deletion a while ago but was not deleted. The article is more or less a case of wp:soap. Anything of value can be merged to the article United States-Iran relations. Jayran 06:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as clear NPOV. Plus which, it's got the wrong name -- if this article must be, it should be titled Causes for war between US and Iran (or something similarly more specific). Deltopia 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support reflects the grievances that could cause the war. Causes as a title would violate WP:CRYSTAL. The article is about support for the war from the media and politicians today.-- Southern Texas  21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete NPOV, and as stated above the information in this article is better placed in a more general article on US-Iran relations. --Martin Wisse 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-POV; agree with nom that anything of value should be incorporated into United States-Iran relations. GlassCobra (Review) 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable public opinion subject, and the article is sourced. If someone thinks the article is POV, please add alternative views described in reliable sources. If one can not add sourced alternative views, this is not POV.Biophys 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and sourced.  May need some NPOV work.  Bacchiad 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is sourced. I don't really see how its POV since alternate views can be found at Opposition to war against Iran. The article is about support for war against Iran.-- Southern Texas  19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The chief problem of this article is that serves as little more than a reiteration of certain segments of the US government and some of neo-con segments in the American political scene. Anything that this article has can easily be encapsulated in United States-Iran relations - this article functions as little more than a pov-fork and wp:soap - both of which are not good things for Wikipedia. Jayran 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions.   —Jayran 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain how. I don't see anything in it that is opinionated in any way. You may disagree with what the politicians and some in the media are saying but that does not mean that it shouldn't be on wikipedia when it is based on fact.  The fact is that some support a military attack on Iran and its wikipedia's job to present this fact.-- Southern  Texas  20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly bollocks, as it entirely consists of quotes from politicians taken out of context, with no consideration of anything else they might have said. 199.71.183.2 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon user is correct, for instance, here is a quote from the source for Hillary Clinton - "Clinton, who's running far ahead in New Hampshire polls, Obama who's second and Edwards third, also agreed on Iranian nuclear weapons, but none threatened war." She says that all options will be considered can hardly be construed as a case for supporting a war against Iran. The authors of the article try to defuse the appearance that this is little more than a soapbox by forcing Clinton in to the article. I would like to see a case for why any relevant info from this article, if any, can't be folded in to the already existent article on US relations with Iran. This article besides being a case of pov and wp:soap, is also a case of wp:syn. Jayran 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the only problem is the quote with Clinton then I'll remove it. I didn't even add it in the first place. It would not be practical to merge it into the already huge Iran-American relations page since this page is a very specific article about Support for military action against Iran. This isn't even about relations between Iran and the United States but sentiments that support military actions against Iran. Do you contest that these sentiments exist? That would really be the only reason to delete the article. I still haven't gotten an explanation of how this is POV.-- Southern Texas  03:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NPOV, the sources are just opinions, which violates WP:RS Jbeach56 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You really don't give a good explanation. How are the sources just opinions, explain this. Some sources include NBC and the New York Times.-- Southern  Texas  21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Rename as current name cannot comply with NPOV. It is a POV fork of "Attitudes / Opposition to war against Iran". Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the name? Do you dispute the fact that some support war against Iran? You make no sense and you are not being rational.-- Southern Texas  21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Opposition to military action against Iran. Classic WP:POVFORK. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 15:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read this: WP:POVFORK-- Southern Texas  22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument could, if desired, be applied to any POV fork. The case in point is less like the case of Creationism/Evolution (where "schools of thought" have developed that hold opposing views based on different theories, models or belief systems) and more like Level of support for evolution which documents opinions, on one quite specific issue, which may be held for any reason. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view All the above guidelines have been met. This article is giving information about a point of view that supports military action against Iran just as Opposition to military action against Iran gives information about a point of view that opposes military action. The article must not be merged since it is not about US-Iran relations but support among people in the United States and Europe. I ask that the nomination be withdrawn on grounds that the article follows policy as has been demonstrated.-- Southern Texas  19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You should actually read the examples of acceptable examples of pov based articles. This article is nowhere near those examples. Despite your claims that this can't be deleted and merged with the relevant articles doesn't make an ounce of sense. US-Iran Relations could easily mention that US politicians have been sabre-rattling. Just about any media source, especially ones from outside the US - like Le Monde, the BBC, or the Guardian, will take this in to account in their stories about relations between Iran and the US. The UN resolution article could mention that there is, under certain circumstances, a willingess to go war among some citizens in the West. The article does suffer from wp:syn and povfork. It is an effort to disregard the other side by claiming that is like the creationism/evolution debate. Jayran 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete. Would you also like to delete the opposition page? The fact is that this exists and I really don't see your point in trying to censor this fact. You can go and make claims that this article "suffer[s] from wp:syn and povfork" but you don't cite how. All guidelines are followed this article will stand despite your efforts to censor it remember Wikipedia is not censored. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you.-- Southern Texas  20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of always referencing idontlikeit, actually look at the page for United States-Iran Relations, Nuclear program of Iran, and the UN resolution page. They all have sections dealing with what is discussd in this page and with better context. There is a lengthy section in the US-Iran article on the US attitude, sabre-rattling, and attitude towards a war with Iran or such movement towards one. It mentions relevant politicans, public support, and posturing by various factions in the US political establishment. It provides a wider context versus this disparate collection of views from various figures in the US political scence and that one poll of Europeans that really says nothing. This isn't censorship but an effort to achieve NPOV and avoiding such problems as povforks and wp:syn. Jayran 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it is in other places then the information can be added to this article and make it easier to see all the information in one place. I now understand why you feel it would be best to delete the article but I would disagree and point out that the article can be expanded and wikified. If we have all this similar information spread all over different articles it would harder for a user to understand the support for military action and harder to go more in depth. A separate article for "Opposition" made it easier for readers to understand the issue and users were also able to go much more in depth about the subject. The need for this article is just about information distribution and organization. The subject matter of the article is POV but the information is presented neutrally, opposing views are linked and therefore it cannot be cited as a POV fork. Just give it time to expand and let the article grow.-- Southern Texas  22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article doesn't even define what it means by "war".  Discussion of this outside the scope of U.S.-Iran relations and general policy considerations is meaningless.  Wasted Time R 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NPOV (especially the pov-fork section) Chris! my talk 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No real reasons for deletion have been given other than that people just don't like what the article is talking about. Sorry but these are the facts. Absolutely no "POV" has been pointed out and if you actually read the article you see there is absolutely no bias but just a presentation of the facts.-- Southern Texas  01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, I renamed the article Support for military action against Iran, maybe this is a more appropriate name for the article.-- Southern Texas  01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, most users here agree that this is an article that falls under wp:soap, wp:syn, and wp:povfork. It does as there are numerous relevant articles where anything of value here can be merged in to. Why on Earth this US-centric article can't be folded in to United States-Iran relations or United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 hasn't been explained. The article takes comments from US politicians and runs with it in such a way that is misleading for people reading the article. WP:POVFORK states "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." This article inherently fails at this test. Jayran 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This was already explained above but I guess I will explain it again, "This isn't even about relations between Iran and the United States but sentiments that support military actions against Iran. Do you contest that these sentiments exist?" Since when is it wrong to have an article that talks about sentiment from the Media and Politicians supporting an action, along with polls from the United States and Europe. The article is about "Support" if one wants to read about "Opposition" they can find the appropriate page. The article is fact and would inappropriate to delete or merge per the reasoning I stated above.-- Southern Texas  20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So if people want to read about opposition they can find the appropriate page. Isn't that the definition of a POV fork? A neutral name needs to be found if the article is to comply with NPOV. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is not trying to convince people of a point. It is giving information about those who support a point. The article gives information about a movement to support military action just as the other article gives information about a movement to oppose military action. The movement exists and people must be aware of it.-- Southern Texas  22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you don't like the title of the article, then place a request at Requested moves.  I've learned this the hard way.   Bur nt sau ce  22:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't help but agree with Burntsauce. If you dislike the title, then why don't you just put a request on the requested move page?? Anyway, the page needs a damn good cleanup. Davnel03 16:42, 3 October 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.