Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unholy Alliance (geopolitical)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance (geopolitical)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seemingly unholy combination of WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP, etc. Avi (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As nom. -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep ...though Israel is tangentially implicated, this article provides useful info on the Non-Aligned Movement workings and positions and yet another example of the increasingly common usage "unholy alliance." As more info comes to light, it will grow. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There is the barest of justifications to keep this article as it currently stands, as the use of "unholy alliance" to refer to any group of two or more countries that stand in opposition to any policy is fairly routine, though there is one source to support the usage. Other sources are available here, this book and this one all appear to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Alansohn.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn. There should be an article about the meaning of Unholy Alliance in the context of (geo)politics, but the present content discusses only one of several unholy alliances. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The title is too loaded for NPOV and this article does not discuss the topic in a general way. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as patently unencyclopedic. Eusebeus (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. A perfectly notable concept/phrase which a good article can delve into. Here's 1100+ searchable online books that may help. -- Banj e  b oi   08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom mentions all relevant policies. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note, more encyclopedic rewrite. Remember, this is still really a "stub" for a larger article which having the stub enables. BTW, how can it be NEO, SYNTH, or SOAP if used or referenced in more than 1100 books? -74.162.153.126 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is User:65.246.126.130. Opinions should only be made once and IPs should not be used to manipulate Afd discussions. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From Deletionist Shereth (below): "The motivation of the contributors to a debate is not relevant to the veracity of their observations." -74.242.254.148 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, goodie, it's User:Mbhiii in disguise. Avi isn't calling anyone's motivation into question, just pointing out that you ought not come in under the guise of an anonymous editor and make multiple !votes.  Pretty simple, really. Shereth 02:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock-puppets, flesh-puppets, mil-ind-com cabals? 1000 professionals work in these halls. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOCK, meat puppets are treated the same as sockpuppets. -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's a refine book search using Unholy alliance in the book title. IMHO, this supports that the concept is certainly notable and examples come secondary to the concept. -- Banj e  b oi   10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a clear-cut case of original research. I hate to break it to the above, but showing up in multiple book titles does not entitle a phrase to an encyclopedia entry.  The arguments being made here were trotted out a long time ago (for what was more a more admittedly POV version) at Articles for deletion/Unholy Alliance and the same counter-arguments apply today.  This does not meet inclusion criteria. Shereth 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We write encyclopedic articles on notable topics, concepts and even words. The current version has problems which are fixable. Sourcing exists in bucketfuls so all that remains is clean-up which is not a reason to delete. -- Banj e  b oi   13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not require a lesson on what we do or do not write articles on. Popularity != notability != merits an article.  It is my observation that the article fails our requirements regarding no original research.  If the article can be rescued then by all means rescue it.  I do not share your optimism, however, and maintain that it does not meet minimum standards.  Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 02:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some work, certainly... but not worth a deletion. C'mon, guys, try to fix things instead of throwing it away, right? ;) Ks64q2 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an expression. Mentioning when it was used, for any undesirable alliance, makes sense, I suppose.  And who is calling who by that phrase?  Certainly those connected don't refer to themselves that way.  What is the purpose of this article?  Just to explain what the expression means, and when it has been used throughout history, and by who, and towards who it was directed at, and perhaps even why?  Or is it meant to be something more?   D r e a m Focus  02:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, indisputable. Agree, especially since use is so wide-spread. Vast numbers of literate and academic people referring to obscure alliances. True. To point up its common geopolitical uses and perhaps identify obscure alliances that other articles miss. That alone suffices. There is room here for identifying obscure geopolitical alliances, in fact, and providing reasons for the obscuring. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please *Keep this article & topic. I saw this some time ago as well.  In this country we are allowed to have such discussions & articles in print.  There is sufficient, reputable verification & reference.  Please keep!!  Very interesting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.152.225 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is a sock/meat puppet of User:65.246.126.130 and cannot have their opinion counted for more than once. -- Avi (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, from the volume and variety, there has to be at least several editors at User:65.246.126.130. Secondly, there are roughly 1,000,000 people in the Research Triangle area, and I have no idea at all who this last person is. -MBHiii (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, really, that this IP address has an amazing habit of editing articles that you have edited, yet you claim that it must not be you. Do you really expect anyone to accept it as pure coincidence that someone else using an IP in the same range as yours has the same editing style, the same interests in terms of articles to edit, and even magically stumbles upon this very same discussion regarding a pet topic of yours?  What a fantastic coincidence!  Please, do us all a favor by logging in when you edit - or at the very least, when you participate in discussions.  <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources benjiboi showed make it clearly notable as well as encyclopedic. The article as stands isn't a POV fork and doesn't have to become one.  Them  From  Space  18:23, 21 March 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.