Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 1933 Agreement of 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 merge.

The Google books and scholar links do not point to books exclusively dedicated to this topic, but to such works as "Class, Politics, and Ideology in the Iranian Revolution and "Oil and Law in Iran". Editors who feel that an article about such a topic provides a better place for the 1933 agreement are encouraged to expand or write such an article, including a substantial coverage of content that is independent of the APOC/AIOC article. In doing so, text portions that are not germane to APOC, such as section "", should be moved to the new article, if applicable. &mdash; Sebastian 04:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1933 Agreement of Iran

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Content fork of Anglo-Persian Oil Company written by an SPA, apparently as a term paper. I've tried redirecting it and prodding it but the author just reverts and I want to avoid an edit war. andy (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) andy (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) *Keep. While there are issues with the article as it is currently, the 1933 agreement is a very notable subject, worthy of its own entry (and it has its own entry already in some printed encyclopedias). A quick search on google books will find that it features prominently in several books, and that there are works written entirely about the 1933 agreement and its repercussions- lots of research material available if someone wants to improve the current article. The AFD nominator thinks that the 1933 agreement should be solely covered within the article on APOC (one of the parties involved in the agreement). I strongly disagree. --Brunk500 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect: per WP:CFORK and WP:UNDUE. I see attempts have been made to get the creator to talk ...   RGTraynor  16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It has its own entry in encyclopedias? Which ones?   RGTraynor  17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another comment: moveover, the material in the nominated article is properly set in context in Anglo-Persian Oil Company and forms the bulk of that article. The 1933 Agreement of Iran is pretty much a rewrite of Anglo-Persian Oil Company with the emphasis switched from APOC to the 1933 agreement. andy (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. These 545 books and these 83 scholarly papers cover the subject. This is an international treaty with widespread effects that go far beyond one particular company, and are still being felt today in the mutual distrust between Iran and the West. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - nobody said otherwise. The point is that this article duplicates the content of another, better one! andy (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Andy people are aware of your reasons for nominating, we just happen to disagree. to provide a ludicrious example - what if WW2 was covered really well within the germany article, and the WW2 article itself was more problematic. would we delete ww2? --Brunk500 (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is obviously yes if it was a content fork as defined at WP:CFORK. Particularly if it was also POV and OR. I can't for the life of me see what this article adds to WP. If we do need a separate article then the relevant material should be taken out of the APOC article and used as a basis - at least it is well written and neutral. andy (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * this is from WP:CPFORK "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. " COntent forking is more relevant to people gaming the system to create duplicate articles with different names- however APOC and the 1933 agreement are NOT the same subject --Brunk500 (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a misleading extract. The very next sentence in the same paragraph says: "As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." This is obviously irrelevant - in this case we're not talking about Napoleon and Josephine, who were two different people, but simply two perspectives on the same issue - as if, for example, we had articles on "Napoleon and Josephine" and "Josephine and Napoleon"! The more relevant paragraph is CFORK which deals with cases where a duplicate article is created in good faith (but ignorance), as in this case where a student has been tasked with creating an article about the 1933 Agreement. The paragraph says clearly that "Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article". andy (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW I notice that the author of the article, who clearly states in the very first edit summary that it is OR, worked for a period of two hours more than a week ago and has not been heard from since, in particular not playing any part in this debate. What are we getting bothered about? It was written as a classroom exercise because Professor P. Valenti said so and nobody really cares any more. Merge or delete the darned thing. andy (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator Editors need to see wikipedia pages 2 or 3 dimensionally rather than one dimensionally, and realize that merging is much more preferably than deletion, because the edit history is still intact.  Ikip  00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per nom Its apparently a homework of some random student, clear and simple... Thus it could be presumed that the author simply opened Wikipedia and created the article, without checking if similar content already exist, and won't accept others' edits whatsoever because he need to do it himself to complete his work... Nevertheless, this could reasonably be considered a good faith contribution, and deletion might be inappropriate. Better merge instead. Blodance (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2009 (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.