Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy


 * 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. --Core desat  20:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy

 * — (View AfD)


 * Delete much of the factual content on the article is disputed and seriously looks like use of article space to support a point-of-view. Jersey Devil 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Devil, how familar are you with this subject? Have you read any of the 18 sources listed on this page? If so, how many. How much have you contributed to this article before the deletion? I don't see your name in any of the 500 edits on this page. You state: "much of the factual content on the article is disputed" What factual content is disputed? You don't say. Have you attempted to discuss this content on talk? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see your name anywhere on the talk page either. As per WP:Afd: Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. Jersey Devil, have you or any of the editors who want to delete this article edited the article before? Have you: 1. consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, 2, mention[ed] your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or 3. add[ed] a "cleanup" template? Now these three points are not policy, but it is something that should be considered by every person who wants to delete this article, and by the person deciding this case. a hopeless case links to  Speedy deletions does this page meet any of the policy reasons under Speedy deletion? Editors have to guess if this page violates Speedy deletions because your nomination explains no reason behind this WP:AFD.  Since you have not edited the article ever before you put it up for deletion, editors can't depend on these reasons on the article talk page either. User:Khodavand the only person who I see who has contributed one word to this article wrote, "IMHO this is a bad faith nomination", based on the three points at WP:Afd I have to reluctantly agree. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Devil, but are you trying to say that just because some people with a strong opposite POV (hence NOT NPOV), we should delete this article??? There is nothing in WP policy or guidelines to back that up. If everyone thought like you, we'd have to delete 90% of WP! :) Khodavand 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per JD, sources either have nothing to do with the article, or are to Conservative web-sites. Article appears to be a NPOV violation Citicat 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NOR: "synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." NOR:NPOV: No prominent adherents are named in the article. The main "controversial" person currently does not have an article in the Wiki (article created 3 hours after I posted this). With NPOV the fringest of fringe theories shouldn't be represented as though they represent a significant minority of the population. Settler 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Sources were used to support POV and their selection is at least in part unencyclopedic and may be sign of bias of original editor. I don't think it is possible to base good article on this and as it seems there are no reliable sources for potential rewrite. Therefore I think it should be deleted.--Pethr 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment For some reason people started to accuse one another of being "leftish" or "conservative" here. Just for the record, my edit history is bipartisan and I'm not related to U.S. in any way. I edited the article even before it was nominated. This article has 11 sources:
 * First linking for whatever reason (???) to the homepage of The Iranian-American Bar Association.
 * Second one after sentence "Nemazee was also national finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee until late 2006." cites Marketplace commentary on democratic financing, but sentence needs rather official source saying that Nemazee was indeed chairman from xxxx until late (?) 2006.
 * Third source is for Nemazee being "top fundraiser and donor to the Democratic National Committee for the past 10 years." But doesn't state that this title was given to him by activist blog...
 * Paragraph "During his presidency, Bill Clinton attempted to name Nemazee U.S. Ambassador to Argentina but was rejected by the US Senate after Forbes magazine published in May 1999 an expose of his financial dealings and involvement with the Islamic Republic. According to the New York Times he withdrew." Doesn't cite source for his rejection but than states that NYT said he witdrew - so what's the true?
 * Another source (Cybercast News Service) really sources what's written in the article but why quote conservative news website?? No other outlet ran this story? What about some major daily?
 * Anoher sources is for what Nemazee testified - WorldNetDaily - and again, why source from conservative website?
 * The same as the one before...
 * Another two are Chinese People's daily and Iranian farsi.net stating that Clinton's "missive" was ignored. Farsi cites American State dep. spokesman, etc. Again: No other source?
 * NYT is about other unrelated letter and should support that there was only one previous letter sent to Iran ("This was Clinton's second letter to Mohammad Khatami.") Could there be other letters as well? Does this source guarantee what it should? (Well, this is really not so terribly important to the article.)
 * In the last one People's daily says that Teheran Times said...
 * This is just about the sources... there are lots of unsourced statements/weasel words and I removed the most POV statements before this article was nominated. There is no substance in this artcile, is unencyclopedic, is indeed badly sourced and I still do think it should be deleted.--Pethr 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is sourced and meets all of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. See WP:BIAS - these allegations are common enough in the media and again, sources have been provided (see WP:V), so accusations of OR are silly. The above users appear to have a leftist, pro-Democratic POV. Wikipedia is not here to pander to partisans, but to represent all POVs. See WP:NPOV. Khodavand 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette Settler 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to hear your sarcasm and you should take your own advice. You guys have a definite WP:BIAS and can't even come up with a good argument on the talk page of the article. IMHO this is a bad faith nomination because it is one thing to be honest about why to delete, it is another to delete because of their own POV and attacking me for it! Khodavand 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - All the info in the article is also in the entry for Hassan Nemazee, the title is not NPOV and mischief making as there is nothing to justify the main thrust of the article's title in that the DP has a covert relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Maybe Nemazee is acting to subvert the Democratic party through his influence and financial assistance but that is clearly not the same thing as being suggested here. Unless you can come up with something more than innuendo it should go. Yorkshiresky 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately it's going to happen again. Hessam 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep your bad faith accusations to yourself or you will find yourself blocked. Khodavand 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm familliar with every single guideline and policy on English Wikpedia. I've translated most of them into persian. So I know when blocking is possible! For keeping balance I linked to this page from U.S. Wikipedians' notice board. Hessam 12:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge whatever salvageable there is in this article to a controversy section in the main article -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, topic covered by Hassan Nemazee, remainder soapboxing, original research, and innuendo supported by weasel words. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant, POV, and too OR.-- danntm T C 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is POV Per title, and I find it very offensive that someone would even create an article on this topic. I am also aware that offensive is no reason to delete an article, but this is redundent and stupid, and certianly does not belong on wikipedia.--Sefringle 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 1) Wikipedia is not censored, so if you people are saying to delete because its offensive (and you're a Democrat) then thats a damn shame. 2) The article subject matter is legitimate, as legitimate as the allegations that US and UK developed the coup against Mohammad Mossadegh - and yet that article states it as fact (in reality they only provided support for the plot, which was entirely of Iranian conception and operation)! 3) If this article is deleted, then by God delete Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and all other such allegations articles so that there is NO hypocrisy or WP:BIAS here. Otherwise this article must be kept. Khodavand 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs less OR/pov issues. Remake later if handled better F.F.McGurk 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy WP:NOR Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Seeing the emerging disinformation campaign - for reference: subject of article does not exist. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep has the nominator worked on this article to improve it, have any of these editors wanting to delete the article worked on this article? I haven't worked on this article, but I am not advocating the deletion of someone else's contributions to an encyclopedia. It is easy to nominate an article for deletion, to easy in my opinion, it is much harder to work toward a consensus.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing but WP:OR creating a controversy that is not mentioned in the reliable sources provided to support the claims and drawing ties between the Democratic Party as a whole, a major political contributor, and the government of Iran which also are not supported by the reliable sources provided. --Bobblehead 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Citicat, Settler, Bobblehead. The reliable sources in this article do not mention any controversy, nor any related allegations. Their use here represents a synthesis and thus a violation of WP:NOR. With the removal of those sources as a NOR violation, we are left only with far-right websites which cannot be considered reliable sources for these claims, per WP:RS. So this article fails WP:V as well. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sources fail WP:RS and the article as written is Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and will never be anything than pure conjecture, as NO RELIABLE SOURCE has ever made this connection.  So there.  Chew on it.  Spoken in my best Executive Branch voice.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go chew on your own personal attacks and POV. Khodavand 07:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Don't be fooled, all four of the sources provided are for pieces of information that are tangential to the title and content of this article. Savidan 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Instead of deleting, I propose that the article be expanded to encompass other party support and fund raising controversies relevant to US-Iran relations. That is a highly informative topic.--Zereshk 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If articles like Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (which was speedy kept) are fine and accordance with WP policy, then this article stays. Calling the sources like WorldNetDaily or FrontPage magazine as far-right, unreliable, or extreme is nonsense and severely POV. Wikipedia is NOT censored - if you have counter sources to add, please feel free to do so. But to censor this article, to attack me and the sources is inexcusable. So far none of the people here calling for deletion (especially the most vocal ones) have been able to properly respond to my points. That speaks volumes! Khodavand 07:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - I reviewed all your sources what about commenting there? Nobody responded to your points because you don't have any - 1) yes, Wikipedia isn't censored; 2) subject isn't legitimate because it doesn't have single academic or at least major news article supporting it's main topic; and 3) we are not talking about other articles here but about this one. And if you don't want to be attacted don't write things like The above users appear to have a leftist, pro-Democratic POV. next time, may be others won't say the opposite about you and this discussion will be a little more normal. Thank you.--Pethr 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty much a conspiracy theory with no mainstream media coverage. I having serious doubts about the truthfulness of the article even. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: and merge anything verfiable into Nemazee. Lack of RS V sources (WND and Front Page are not). Title itself is OR and a synthesis of material to advance a POV. (hmmmm....might be time to start writing that Bush Ties to Islamist Terrorism Controversy article with the 2001 Sami al-Arian WH meeting, photo with Bush and Sami in Fl in 2000 and those Frank Gaffney claims, Carlyle Group ties, Bush kissing Saudi Princes, and of course the infamous | 28 pages  implicating Bush's 'Saudi Masters' that Bush withheld from the 9/11 report ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 12:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has little scholarly weight, and is an attempt at pushing a POV. Requests for more verifiable sources have gone ignored, and indeed, attacked.--Primal Chaos 12:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. If there is a problem with POV pushing or RS-V sources, then it should be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it. This is a significant controversy within the Democratic Party. - ClemsonTiger 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet of blocked user User:BryanFromPalatine Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Travb and Khodavand. Article is sourced and sources meet the criteria of WP:RS and WP:V. As Khodavand writes, calling the sources listed as "far-right" or "extremist" is itself POV. We're not talking about white supremacist sources or the John Birch Society or anything like that which would obviously not such criteria. Whether or not anyone agrees with the sources is moot - the fact remains that such allegations against the Democratic Party do exist and go back to the JFK administration (when there were accusations of Democrats being "soft on Communism".) Similar accusations (though in a slightly different vein) have been leveled at the Republican Party, such as the relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi royal family. These are actual allegations - they exist. You cannot ignore them due to your ideological or partisan bent and to delete this material would be stripping Wikipedia readers of valuable information that is difficult to find elsewhere. Khodavand makes a wonderful point in suggesting that all relevant POVs be included in the article. This proves to me that the article was started in a good faith move. Again, deleting or ignoring sources is not the answer. Rather, the answer is to include opposing viewpoints to balance such articles. This is the way it's always been done on Wikipedia, and when adhered to, things always remain neat and copacetic. Capesh? metaspheres 13:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "We're not talking about ... the John Birch Society or anything like that". Actually, we are. WorldNetDaily: "Indeed, for years the JBS has been scoffed at by many as a paranoid, conspiratorial, "sky-is-falling" hard-right organization. Except that, very often, the John Birch Society has proven to be right on target. In "The 40-year gun grab," for instance, WorldNetDaily documented conclusively that the Birch Society's decades-old claims -- long ridiculed as ludicrous -- that the U.S. government's infamous "Document 7277" represented a "blueprint" for disarming Americans were actually true."[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19631 ] &mdash; coe l acan  t a lk  &mdash; 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is unbalanced but shouldn't be deleted. for example see this article : 1996 United States campaign finance controversy--Pejman47 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The one from 1996 has actual articles pertaining to the premise. It uses mostly mainstream sources from publicly-traded companies. It cites Government investigations. This one up for deletion, however, does not. No prominent adherents are named. It's currently not possible to "balance" such an article when the very premise is not currently acknowledged by a combination of professional journalists, politicians, the FEC, law enforcement, etc. Settler 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, conspiracy theory, no mainstream media coverage, sources are a joke, article is an attempt to push a POV Pfalstad 23:52, 15 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.