Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The role of Iran and Syria during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I created Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

In there a NPOV rewrite of this page, when its deleted, should go. Also please pass on to Deutshland friend that this NPOV title exists.--Cerejota 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The role of Iran and Syria during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
The article, both the title and the body, is far too POV, original research, and reads like an op-ed piece. It's clear that this was written to prove a specific POV. All the major statements are unsourced (To wit, the entire opening section: "Iran and Syria are the two main powers who support during that conflict the Hizbollah. An intellgence officer said, the true leaders of the operation are in Tehran and Damascus. Iran and Syria had supported the Hizbollah in the past. ... Although Iran has welcomed the fall of two of its historical enemies ... the presence of U.S. troops in two of Iran's immediate neighbors is seen as a threat."). Some minor points are sourced, but not from particularly well-known news agencies. I have no history editing the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but this is obviously a POV fork from that article. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi am against the deletion. It should be important to point out what's the role of Syria and Iran in the conflict. The reason is many even president bush and the israelian gouverment say Iran and Syria tried to make use the crisis for their own goals. So it should be clear, which reasons could the two countries have to make such a strategy and what is their role in the conflict. U can't put all of that in the main article cause if will be too much of it. I had (RFC) just started the article. And in the german wikipedia is also such an artcile. I think such an article is important so u can point out what US and Israel say why these countries are part of the problem and it is also important because when Israel is going to attack Syria and later we will ask why they had done it, so we have sucn an article and find out why this was happen and so on. There was a fast deletion and it was failed. Now that entry. I think it would be better to work on the article. :( It's also sad that the person doesn't wrote a reason why the article should be deleted. So please keep it! i know there can be much better. But this is a wikipedia, so I had hope the others will help me. :) --Japan01 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note, "the person doesn't wrote a reason why the article should be deleted" was because you jumped the gun a little: I hadn't finished nominating this page for deletion. "There was a fast deletion and it was failed": Someone nominated this for {db-attack}, but it wasn't. The person who removed the deletion noted it was AFD-able. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad English is no deletion reason. --213.155.224.232 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Bad English. In any case, it's merely suspicion and could be mentioned in the main article. __earth (Talk) 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why the German wikipedia has an article about this is because User:Japan01 made it there too. I note it is also up for deletion on the German wikipedia too.  If we were to write an article, it would need rewriting effectively from scratch, as the present article doesn't actually make any sense and violates innumerable policies and guidelines.  I'm not expressing an opinion on whether we should have an article about it, but the present article is not it and should be nuked.  In any case this is also a terrible name for the article.  Many of the reasons given by User:Japan01 are bogus with respect to Wikipedia: "it should be important to point out things" - this is not our mission, we are reporting on what secondary sources say.  Morwen - Talk 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * in the german wikipedia we have atm the problem that some people want to delete many articles bout that conflict. --Japan01 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The article, both the title and the body, is far too POV. But we can make an article about the role of all countries which involves in the conflict: The role of foreign counties in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict or merge this arthcle with International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict--Sa.vakilian 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed on all points asbestos. This sort of thing belongs in a blog, not an encyclopedia. Infinitenoodles 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Anyone who thinks that title is POV may not understand much of the conflict and geo-political issues going on. The title is about as POV as it gets, neither country has ever denied funding Hezbollah, so they obviously have a role in the conflict. To delete this article because of a lack of other countries having articles is kind of silly, we do not remove content because we do not have equal content on all portions. However the article needs moer information and possibly a rewrite, I think a PROD / Cleanup was more in order then a AfD. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article, begining with the title, is POV, OR, and a bazillion other stuff that ill let wikicounsels get on with, but its main wrong is that it excludes the role of other non-combatant countries in the conflict. For example, it excludes the role the USA in the conflict which, to paraphrase you, anyone who "understand much of the conflict and geo-political issues going on" is aware of.


 * An alternative that the existence of this page raises is that there might be a need for a page on the role of non-combatant nation states in the conflict, not just Iran and Syria in particular. Althought I don't know if this is really neccesary considering there is an "International reactions" page, which could be re-tasked. Dunno, ill raise it talk in the main article.--Cerejota 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork. It sufficies to raised sourced statements about this in the main article. If at some point in the future we get a separate page on general international influences on the conflict, for example, covering US support and funding of Israel, then this page, havily rewritten, might be a section there.--Cerejota 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article wasn't nominated because of "a lack of other countries having articles is kind", it was nominated because all of the most important statements in the article are entirely unsourced original research written from a single point of view. And stating it would have been better to "PROD" the article is surely not what you meant: WP:PROD is used to delete an article when everyone agrees it ought to be deleted. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didnt say you nominated it for those reasons. As for my WP:PROD error, I thought it would still be clear but, what I am saying is a call for sources should have been made before a call for delete. I think a cleanup and asking for sources would be in order unless you find it to be a POV fork, which there is no POV, these countries do support Hezbollah, or factually false information. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite. Hello32020 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete At best, merge it with an existing related article or, like Sa.vakilian stated, create a The role of foreign counties in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Having such a specialized article with so little useful information will undoubtedly spawn additional articles of similar caliber to either balance what people see as POV abuse or else address topics that could not otherwise be addressed in this topic's narrow focus.--Epsilonsa 17:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork, as suggested by Stifle on his de-tagging it for speedy. I also agree to a degree with Epsilonsa's evaluation that the information here might be better served as far as NPOV goes in a more centralized article regarding all foreign involvement. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Because of all the reasons above. -- MehranVB talk 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. POV fork. No reason that what is verifiably reported about roles of various countries can't be reported in the main article. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. POV fork. It is polemic essay, at best.Behaafarid 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have a deletion discussion about the German version of this article because of we have deletion proposals on any article related to the conflict. don't understand it as a POV fork but a valid way of dealing with a complex crisis and a fast growing article. Keep.--213.155.224.232 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it deffinetly needs to be rewritten but this is an important article which is not strictly POV since numerous news agencies report on it and it is a key factor that is driving political moves on the conflict. Also it should be mentioned that no one really disputes the claim of Iran and Syria supporting Hezbullah. People Pro-Hezbullah would likely see it as a badge of pride. Heavy editing must be done and some unverrifiable parts removed but a seperate article on this topic is deffinetly warrented.


 * Delete POV fork. It sufficies to raised sourced statements about this in the main article. If at some point in the future we get a separate page on general international influences on the conflict, for example, covering US support and funding of Israel, then this page, havily rewritten, might be a section there.--Cerejota 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per user Talk and user Epsilonsa.--Mani1 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Can someone please explain this POV issue? I keep seeing it mentioned as a reason for deletion, yet noone seems to get that everyone, including the countries in question, agrees that Iran and Syria fund Hezbollah. What is this alternate POV being left out, or what is this supposed POV that is being used as justification for deletion instead of rewriting? -- zero faults   ' '' 19:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because we don't need an entire article to point that out. That could be mentioned in the main article, properly sourced. Creating an entire article with this title gives the appearance of WP having a POV. And sure enough, when I go to read the article, it's full of POV all over as explained above. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No I dont think that helped, however I appreciate the attempt. The question is, what is this POV everyone keeps talking about? The countries who support Hezbollah do it openly and proudly, the countries who do not like this, despise it openly. What is this POV that is being enforced if the article stays with a rewrite? -- zero faults   ' '' 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you see POV and I don't there's a chance there is some there, and vice versa. If you and a LOT of other people see POV and I don't there's a really GOOD chance there is POV there. A LOT of people see POV in how this current article is written. So it's almost certainly (not 100% certain, I guess, but almost certainly) there even if you don't see it. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesnt as you didnt actually say anything. I am sure if there is a POV in the article title, someone can surely say what it is instead of just stating there is POV. Its ok however since Vjam was nice enough to point out a misunderstanding I had. I personally have never seen Syria deny funding Hezbollah, but he was kind enough to actually present a source. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork StuffOfInterest 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless someone is able to do the subject justice PDQ. It's too much of an eyesore to wait around for that to happen. On the POV question raised by Zer0faults, I think it very likely that Damascus and Iran support and even, to some extent, direct Hezbollah. However that is my POV. I'm pretty sure there is no evidence for this. Iran and Syria certinly deny it (where do you get your information to the contrary?). There are some claims coming out of Washington that its a well known fact, certainly, but that's not evidence. Remember where you were when you found out there were no WMD in Iraq? --Vjam 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this mystical POV when Syria and Iran both admit to funding Hezbollah? and proudly I might add, supporting them. Everyone keep stating its POV, but what is this POV? They deny running Hezbollah, I never seen them deny funding them, do you haev a source of this denial? -- zero faults   ' '' 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Iran:, Syria . Note these are also not pro-Arab sources. --Vjam 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I take this was in trply to me so I moved it up. Again I am not stating they are fighting there, they support the group diplomatically and financially. The article states "no Iranian Revolutionary Guards fighting alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon." If that is the impression I gave, that I am stating Iran is at war or giving troops that was not what was meant. Again Iran and Syria openly support this group, so what is the POV? -- zero faults   ' '' 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Syria article denies sending weapons, not funding or supporting. Furthermore it goes on to state "Syria says it does have influence it could exert on Hezbollah. But it's also telling Washington: Play ball with us and we'll help you; don’t, and we won't. " But anything taken from that would be OR. Again both countries openly support Hezbollah, so where is the POV? -- zero faults   ' '' 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's support as in "side with" and support as in "help". We're concerned with the latter here. The article on Iran says: "Iran claims it gives only moral support to Hezbollah. On Saturday Abbas Ali Kadkhodai, spokesman for Iran's powerful Guardian Council, reiterated Iran's assertion that it has no influence over the group". The Syria article, you are right, only has them denying shipping weapons, but, since a negative apparently needs proving, here's another which is more explicit: "We do not provide Hezbollah with arms," Moustapha insisted in a conversation at Syria's embassy in Washington. He also denied charges that Syria had provided Hezbollah with financial support or that Syria enjoyed decisive influence with Hezbolla. Now, I don't really believe any of that, but it doesn't seem there is any evidence to say otherwise (although there are statements made in Washington etc which get repeated in the media, and people end up believing that some evidence must exist. But it doesn't seem to).--Vjam 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per user Talk --Nima Nima 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 81.210.132.168 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge any worthwhile parts into an article for the role of foreign states in general. At this point, the references for the entire second part of this article are from the Irani Government's own news agency, and the out-of-quote references to "the Zionist Regime" by the main contributor seems to reflect the accusations of heavy bias. --S.B. 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with a more abstract article. Qoqnous 09:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys when the article here will be unfourtanatly deleted, we try to work it out in the german one. Atm i looks like the article there will survive and then we try 2 work the main development out. Perhaps later we can try to write a better article so i won't be deleted again. :)) Thx 4 ur feedback. --Japan01 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(RFC) *edit & keep user:infocop411 14:14 7/28/2006 (EDT) think this needs sources verified and edited but deserves to be kept due to the current event happening & will be in the history books
 * Delete I don't think any explanation is needed, the article clearly does not belong in Wikipedia, just like the Misconceptions about Iran article. -- Spahbod   ☼  20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork from a current event article that is attracting a lot of POV itself. MLA 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. par Spahbod.--Zereshk 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV issues Alireza Hashemi 02:55, 28 July 2006 (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.