Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was a prod, declined by the creator "User:Iran nuclear weapons 2," which is as the name suggests a single-purpose account.

This text is a pure WP:POVFORK (or, more charitably, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK) of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and any worthwhile content here could fit far more naturally in that article, or in nuclear program of Iran, or in P5+1, or in foreign relations of Iran.

More importantly, the entire premise of the article, including its title (WP:POVNAMING), is based on a false premise: that there was some sharp shift in "Western" policy. This is factually wrong on two counts. First, there was no uniform policy among "Western" countries at any point; the U.S., Britain, and France have all had various policies over time. Moreover, the idea that there was some moment at which "acceptance" occurred is false, or at the very least reflects a serious lack of nuance.

The most disturbing thing about the creation of this article&mdash;and the thing that demonstrates clearly the POVFORKy nature of it&mdash;is that the creator of this article wanted specific text at Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and started an RfC on it. When other editors expressed disagreement, the creator created this new page, posting on talk that "Wikipedia should have an article with this information in the lead. If that article is to be Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, then this one can be deleted." That kind of obvious gamesmanship is not in keeping with policy, and should not save this article. Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging editors: Neutralitytalk 01:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Information may/not be factual but the naming of the article is clearly WP:POV also there is nothing to suggest that that phrase has ever been used anywhere so it is WP:OR.--Savonneux (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment after a thorough read of the 2 pages. I'm going to say DRN is probably a better venue for this.--Savonneux (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In light of Iran's worldwide campaign to murder those it views as opponents, the suggestion that WP:SPA is a reason to delete, or that a WP:VALIDALT on the topic of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, which this account is, should get any less consideration than any other editor, shows an unbelievable lack of sensitivity. The assertion that there was no "policy" to end Iranian uranium enrichment flies in the face of UN resolutions 1696 1737 1747 1803 1835, and 1929, all of which demanded exactly that. But most importantly, Wikipedia should have an article which states, in the lead, that this acceptance has taken place. The importance is obvious and this single fact is the reason so many people are up in arms about, and frankly terrified of, the whole course of events. Lastly, on the subject of WP:POVFORK, that would apply if the worldwide acceptance of Iran's actions were explicitly covered at the JCPOA article. However, User:Neutrality has been fighting hard against that. How can article B be a POV fork of article A, when article A does not even cover the topic of article B? Keep. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean like how the U.S. government has a worldwide campaign to murder those it views as opponents, including killing over a hundred children? An extremely moralistic POV in which 'the ends always justify the means' is bad enough out in the rest of the world, but in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep your off-topic whataboutery nonsense out of AfD. Your views on the U.S. government is completely irrelevant to the discussion.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep your own claptrap off of AfD. As I said, "in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing". This article is a POV fork and isn't helpful. I'd also like to point out that most editors commenting here agree with me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not a single editor here agreeing with your unrelated views on the U.S. government or that this AfD is a forum for you to discuss them.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, "in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing". This article here at present that you're defending is likely to be deleted soon, and that will be good riddance to bad rubbish. The consensus against what you're boosting is clear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not defending the article in any way as is plainly obvious from my comment below and whether I do does not make your commentary about the U.S. government any more relevant to AfD.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Once {sigh} again, "in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing". There's no reason for you to get all emotional and upset. The fact is that the consensus of the editors is clear, and this article is going to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is going to be deleted because it isn't a good article. Not because of your views on the U.S.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you actually read other people's comments before replying and really understood discussions before putting in your own opinions, then you'd see that my point, which is completely valid, is that it doesn't matter what one's moral views are of the Iranian or American governments. This is Wikipedia, and we strive to edit based on NPOV standards based on what reliable sources say. You can get all emotional and upset as you want, goading and prodding in order to win some kind of war going on in your head, but it doesn't matter. This article is going to get deleted, and your emotional state otherwise is irrelevant. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "...it doesn't matter what one's moral views are of the Iranian or American governments." Exactly. And that is why this AfD is not the place to discuss yours. "This article is going to get deleted" Good to hear.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've said over and over again, your personal POV is completely irrelevant. Why you are so animated and upset over this I have no idea. If you really have to vent yourself and can't let any of this go, then I suggest that you go over to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action page and bother the people over there with your POV haranguing. This discussion here is about the merits of the 'Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment' page. That's it. Your opinions about the Iranian and American governments aren't relevant here. The article is going to be deleted, and that's that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAP. Clear POV fork created after article creator couldn't get their way as of yet at the parent article which they have taken to mean that the "truth" is being hidden. The clearly non neutral point of view title and content of the new article indicates article creator has tried to prove a WP:POINT. Content disputes should be resolved at the page they occur on, not by creating new pages to fit your viewpoint. Encourage article creator to discuss the inclusion of their points over at the parent article. Also please read: Advocacy. Cowlibob (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per cowlibob. The only reasons to care about the western position (or positions) on Iranian uranium enrichment is that (1) Iranian uranium enrichment is in itself important, and/or (2) In understanding the treaty negotiation process, you want to know what the original demands of the two sides were. Since we already have nuclear program of Iran for (1) and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for (2), there's no need for a separate article on this topic. (As far as I understand.) --Steve (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep! This article covers an essential standalone issue that should be separated from the JPOA and JCPOA articles. The following quote from the book "The War That Must Never Be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence" (edited by George P. Shultz and James E. Goodby, 2015) confirms this: "Irrespective of their ultimate outcome, three aspects stand out regarding the current nuclear negotiations with Iran. First, the Joint Plan of Action agreed to by Iran and the P5+1 in November 2013 already concedes Iran’s right to retain an enrichment program while leaving the issue of its size and scope to a final comprehensive agreement. This constitutes a significant shift from the original US position (and UN Security Council Resolutions) which insisted on zero enrichment. The political recognition of Iran’s right to retain even a minimal enrichment program in whatever agreement is reached is likely to create what may be referred to as the “Iran standard” that will compete with the UAE “gold standard” for defining the scope of regional nuclear programs in the future, in particular with respect to enrichment capability."
 * The fact that the issue will or will not be mentioned in the lead of JCPOA does not justify the article deletion. The article may be renamed if and when this is requested, but its current title isn't a cause for deletion. Yagasi (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV fork of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.--Staberinde (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - First of all, there is no such thing as what the article is asserting. Broadly speaking, the Western powers are as opposed to Iran having a nuclear weapon now as they were during the Bush and Clinton administrations. So, the very basis of the article is a mistaken viewpoint (to be charitable)... if not a bald-faced lie (to be more honest). That there are a lot of individuals that oppose the Iran nuclear agreement is true and is notable, but that is not justification for making an article that's only for describing the opponents of the agreement. We don't have articles for List of Western individuals and groups opposed to assault weapons bans or List of Western individuals and groups opposed to a balanced budget amendment (and, if we did, we certainly wouldn't have some kind of POV-pushing whack title like Western acceptance of goddless sodomite traitors taking our guns). I agree with Staberinde and others here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to discern any meaningful, encyclopedic topic in the article. The notion of an "acceptance" seems to be a synthesis. If anything among the contents of the article is worth preserving, it should be userfied.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Delete Contains relevant RS material and title is an accurate representation of said material. On closer reading of the article, I change my mind completely. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (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.