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 TO DELETE. The raw total is 11-5 Delete. But its not a vote. The Keep commentors make the point that (1) It's notable (this is true), (2) It's sourced (this is true) and (3) this is sufficient for the article to be kept absent a compelling reason to delete it. This is a pretty strong position; we don't often delete well-sourced articles on notable subjects. The Keep commentors has a variety of arguments. Is it a POV fork? [User:The Behnam|The Behnam] notes "[W]e have had complaints that it is both too anti-Iran and also too pro-Iran." That doesn't sound like a POV fork to me; I would say that if you have complaints from two opposed camps that you're probably doing something right. Aarktica makes the point "[A]nything that has CURRENT in the title — while news-worthy — is hardly encyclopedic." This is a good point, but not fatal; it appears that it's encyclopedic now and I guess it can be renamed, merged, or delete if and when it is no longer notable. The agrument is made that it's original research, which may be true; but the considerable sourcing tends to belie this, granted it doesn't completely negate it, per Mardavich's comment. For the rest, commentors mainly assert that its unnecessary and unhelpful. But this is not a telling argument when others claim that it is useful and helpful to the Wikipedia. Because of the "vote" totals and the variety of the Delete arguments, I think No Consensus is called for rather than a straight-out Keep. Herostratus 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current international tensions with Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article seems like a POV fork. Someone on the talk page asked for an AFD, so here it is. Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is not a POV fork. Its a significant series of events that cannot be incorporated into any other article without making it unwieldy. Also it has many related sub-articles that would loose any connectivity if this main article is deleted. If I saw someone wanting to rename or merge the article somewhere, that would be reasonable (I would still oppose that ofcourse), but nominating this significant article for straight deletion is not reasonable at all.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User Matt has never contributed to this article and/or its talk page.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 12:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution is not required in order to participate in an AfD. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'm 99% certain the only reason you are voting here is from wikistalking me from my contribs.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was created, the events already were tied together by Foreign relations of Iran. It's not clear why we need an article that focuses only on the tensions, and doesn't include the aspects of Iran's foreign policy that other countries can agree with. And there's no clear reason that we need the summary of current events to be separated from the summary of historical events (especially when foreign relations of Iran has long addressed both). --Interiot 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a decent article with lots of sources on an important current issue. So long as a variety of people keep contributing to it, and offer both sides of the story, then it's legitimate - although it could degenerate into another edit war at any time of course. The fact that there's been such an intense debate about it on the talk page shows that a variety of views are being expressed so I don't see the problem. There wouldn't be any articles on politics if they were all deleted for being contentious, it's the nature of the beast. Nick mallory 12:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move content to relevant articles organized by specific topic or time, for instance Nuclear programme of Iran, United States-Iran relations, Human rights in Iran, to name a few. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too much of an 'analysis' tying things together as if they are related. While they might be, not everybody agrees about the way this unity is presented. I mean, seriously, we have had complaints that it is both too anti-Iran and also too pro-Iran. That's just absurd. Of course, the information itself is good and should be relegated elsewhere, but this article seems to be too much of a construction. I am, however, willing to reconsider if I see some good case for it, but this article has been unworkable for weeks and I have come to believe that it may be a fundamental flaw. The Behnam 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See arguments from myself and User:Interiot at the talk page. Batmanand | Talk 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article definitely started as OR/POV (named Iran international crisis), and people have worked to improve it over time, but even if made fully NPOV, it's not clear there's a purpose for this article. All of the issues covered are already covered at Foreign relations of Iran, History of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or one of the more detailed articles under Category:Foreign relations of Iran. As pointed out on the talk page, we don't have any other article that covers just the most recent events while archiving historical events to History of the Islamic Republic of Iran, except in Portal: space. Or if it's going to go the other way (eventually renamed to something like the 2008 US-Iran war if something serious does happen), then it's crystal-balling to try to predict when the peak in tensions is, or that the tensions will result in hostilities rather than diplomatic resolution. --Interiot 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- this article would beed to be renamed- "current" is not going to be relevant in a years time for example. Thunderwing 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Full of original research, and synthetic research. So delete per "No original research" :Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." --Mardavich 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete encyclopedia not newspaper Sleep On It 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keepwell sourced and highly notable--Sefringle 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move content to relevant articles organized by specific topic or time, for instance Nuclear programme of Iran, United States-Iran relations, Human rights in Iran, to name a few. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 10:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per user Sefringle - Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment don't we have individual articles for relations between Iran and country X (especially Russia, Israel, and USA)? I think that the content belongs at those articles (listed at Foreign relations of Iran#See also). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those articles were brought up three months ago on the talk page [1], but some of the editors seemed intent on describing the current situation as a crisis [2], a crisis that involves multiple countries [3]. It would be good if voters could say whether they've looked at the details of this article and think there's anything worth merging over. --Interiot 05:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article isn't a POV fork, it discusses genuine tensions with Iran, especially from 2003 onwards when Ahmadinejhad was elected. The article is well sourced and is certainly notable. Although individual pages exist for many aspects, e.g. nuclear program of iran, this page serves as something of a summary, and we must remember that tensions exist with iran over more than just its nuclear research. For example the supplying of parts and possibly people to fuel the afghan and iraqi insurgencies.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 09:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mardavich. Original research through synthesis; merge any salvageable content to appropriate articles.--Leflyman^Talk 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The name is rather telling; anything that has CURRENT in the title — while news-worthy — is hardly encyclopedic. --Aarktica 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.