Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misconceptions about Iran

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. The article inherently cannot be neutral. There is no metric for what constitutes a "common" misconception about Iran. The page has already been userfied at User:Khorshid/Misconceptions; any factual information not already present in our Iran-related articles can be gathered from there. JDoorj a m Talk 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions about Iran

A listing of alleged misconceptions about Iran, consists of a combination of trivial facts (which would best go to Iran and related articles), and claims which could hardly be called neutral. Not an encyclopedia article - delete (possibly merge salvageable content to other articles). - Mike Rosoft 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - apparently trying to fail every WP policy and guideline (although could do with some vanity and advertising to round it out!). Yomangani 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to change my opinion to Weak Keep - while I still think this would be better embedded in various Iran related articles, there is work being put in to reference and NPOV it, and having stumbled across List of catch phrases I think there are considerably worse lists out there which could do with attention. Yomangani 08:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for it Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV springboard205.157.110.11 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and self contradicting in places. Nuttah68 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be NPOVed like any other article. Not a good reason to delete. Khorshid 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV magnet. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, terrible non-article. Who writes articles titled "Misconceptions about..."?! Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Failure in keeping so amounts to hypocricy. See: Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS.--Zereshk 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If your argument is that since there is already an article that has the word 'misconceptions' in the title it would be hypocritical to delete this one, then that's a novel approach and I wish you all the best with it. I'd say the the HIV and AIDs article is unencyclopedic too, but at least for the most part it cites sources for where the misconceptions arose. - Yomangani 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion drive is nothing but an attempt to censor some certain facts about Iran. And besides, it doesnt follow WP rules. There is no good reason for deleting this article. "Not encyclopedic" according to whom?--Zereshk 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this discussion is to see whether there is a consensus to delete it, not to censor anything. If it follows all the Wikipedia guidelines then nobody reasonable is going to vote to delete it. At the moment it is is failing WP:V and WP:OR explicitly and WP:RS and WP:POV by extension. As to the unencyclopedic nature, that is up for debate, but I'd say it comes under WP:NOT. Lots of the info would as Mike Rosoft says be better in Iran (and likely to have a wider audience). If you can make it meet all the guidelines I'll gladly change my opinion to 'Keep'. Yomangani 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your first point is not true - many people choose to delete articles for many reasons, including spite, animosity towards subject matter, POV, etc. even if said article is 100% valid, sourced, and true. #2) There is no way that anyone would allow this information in the main Iran article - that article is already very long and this information requires a separate article. #3) All the information here is valid and true. Find me one instance of falsity or POV or OR. Khorshid 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said nobody reasonable is going to vote to delete it, not quite the same thing. I'll make some comments on the discussion page about sources.Yomangani 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with another Iran-related article. I'm sure sure which though. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The information and method of presentation in the article is highly informative and useful, provided adequate sourcing is added.--Nightryder84 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NOR. - FrancisTyers · 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unencyclopedic and a POV magnet.--Jersey Devil 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete factual information is presented in a manner which is not neutral. Case in point - the conclusion that Iran does not support terror and that allegations to the contrary fall under "myth." Such is an ongoing debate and cannot be claimed to be 'myth.' The entire structure of the page lends itself towards bias, because anything can be claimed to be myth and then refuted with a source without having to present all opinions. The verifiable content of this article authors deem worthy of preserving can be better presented without the biased structure of this page, which can be used to conceal political opinion. Matic3d 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article cannot possibly be neutral; its intention is quite plainly to speak in favor of Iran. Factual information in it can be moved with no loss to (or is already placed in) other, good articles about Iran. Belongs in a pro-Iranian forum's FAQ, not in Wikipedia. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really do not know ... maybe a weak keep, as long as the article get's cleaned up and copyedited. Tājik 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is necessary and infact it needs to be added on to. there is a lot of misinformation out in the world, and this page was made in an effort to correct atleast some of those misconceptions.Khosrow II 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps not an encyclopedia article, but thinking of the growing hatred against Iranians, this article could be very usefull. --Spahbod 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- what clearer proof could there be of the inherently POV-pushing nature of this article... --Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Zereshk above, then you might as well delete that article too. --Spahbod 13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A little of it could be salvaged and added to other articles (where appropriate), but the "Ayatollah Regime Frequently Asked Questions" format is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and some of it (such as the tendentiously special-pleading terrorism apologia nonsense) should be deleted with extreme prejudice at the earliest opportunity. AnonMoos 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Closing Admin The user, User:Zereshk, has been internally spamming to try and get a favorable outcome on this afd. Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. (Wikipedia:Spam) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15][16] [17] [18] [19]--Jersey Devil 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not only internal spam, but also external meatpuppet campaigning, on the Persian Wikipedia's Village Pump: "Please vote and save the following article from deletion!" [20] Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, as above, Closing Admin, please take note that Zereshk launched two seperate spamming campaigns for this AfD, which account for over half of the 'keep' votes. --InShaneee 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Views of Iran in media. Within that article, we can have a section titled "Negative considerations". I think it should be easy to find support for these claims within the media. --Aminz 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pablo D. Flores above Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contents (HIGHLY INFORMATIVE!) but not article by itself! Should be linked as reference to IRAN article!--Pantherarosa 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced POV. --InShaneee 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly merge and clean up. This article does not have much POV problem contrary to what many people want us to believe. Most of it consists of simple facts that are NOT DISPUTED by ANY RELIABLE source and for the record, by "reliable" I don't mean Iranian. Calling something misconception does not necessarily make it POV. Behaafarid 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is indeed the case! --Pantherarosa 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aminz above, or something similar. Having seen Views on Shi'a Islam, I think material in the article could be informative if presented in the right context. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'~~keep~~ Delete' Actually this article is badly POV. It is not an encyclopedia entry, but rather a lecture to the readers. "You think Iran is _____, but you have no idea". Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. His Excellency... 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs some work, but it is a legit article! Also User:InShaneee is erasing my messages on my talk page regarding this, so sabotage its chances of survival. Sad move...--(Aytakin) | Talk 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment he is removing those comments because it is against Wikipedia policy to send such comments to get keep votes in afds (see WP:Spam), in the past people have recieved temporary blocks for doing what he did. It is also standard procedure by administrators to remove spam comments.--Jersey Devil 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, and unsourced. I would reconsider my vote if I saw sources, and inclusion of the 'other side' in this, but I fail to understand how it would still be called "Misconceptions..." if we also included the other side.:NikoSilver: 10:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS has no "other side" for the very reason you explained. --Striver 10:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Yes, Zereshk informed me of this afd, and i am gratfull for it, i am intrerested in the topic. The article has already a precedence in Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. The first case, the "Misconception: Iran used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war." and the second "Misconception: The word Iran and Iraq are related." are both very informative and well sourced, i see no original research, but a comendeble atempt at presenting sourced information. It is possible that a single or a few of the point in the article are OR or badly sourced, but that is a editing issue that needs to be fixed or removed from the article. It happens that people use a editing issue like "OR" to argue for the deletion of the entire article, when in fact, it is only a small part of the article that is OR. For those who regard the article as badly writen or pov, or anything else, i would like them to give a quote to demostrated the sweeping alegations. A small part of the article possibly being objectionable is nothing to worry about when the article is newly created (17 july). In fact, the articles 2nd (second!) edit is a afd, and in my view, that is a clear sign of the nominator not even bothering to improve the article, making me question if improving wikipedia is his real objective behind this nominations. Its worth repeating: the article itself has a precedence in Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS, rendeing "Unencyclopedic" claims voided. Thus, Strong keep. Lets not forget Irans role in todays politic, rendering this issue prone to emotive bias. --Striver 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth repeating that citing the survival of one article with Misconceptions in the title isn't a basis for keeping this one. Articles with similar titles have already been deleted [21] (which seems to have risen again as List of misconceptions),[22]. I think a better precendent is the multiple AFD survival of Misconceptions about the Shi'a (albeit renamed several times)...and of course precedent is only a guideline in AFDs anyway. Yomangani 11:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no such thing as binding precedent on Wikipedia (see WP:NBD), so all "keep because article x exists" arguments are null (nominate article x for deletion as well if you like) and I suggest to the closing admin that he takes that into account. This is a vaguely interesting essay that is completely unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, per WP:NOR. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge anything verifiably sourced and not already in appropriate article. Inherently POV ("common"???), cruft-like. If a false story, or urban legend, or any other type of misinformation has gained widespread currency, this should be addressed in Iran or other appropriate article (some of the items are about the Iran-Iraq war) not forked off to this trivia-like FAQ. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Tom Harrison --Joe Dynue 12:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, per Aminz.Itsmejudith 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – I believe it is a very useful and informative article and a summary that rounds up lots of things that cannot be found easily in other articles (or it takes ages to find and summaries). I find this kind of summary pages very useful and informative myself, and they encourage me to learn more about the subject by visiting other related articles. I don’t understand why some people object to them, are we running out of space on Wiki? Is there any harm in providing this kind of information to people? Is there such a thing as too much knowledge? Is knowledge harmful? Is there only one book on every subject in the libraries? Kiumars 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced POV. TomTheHand 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete big time POV, begs the question, unencyclopedic, misconceived by who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karwynn (talk • contribs)
Delete POV trash and quit spamming talk pages BigDT 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very Christian-like attitude. Please adhere to WP:NPA. Thank you. DragonRouge 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe un-Christian, but it isn't a personal attack. The policy you are looking for is WP:CIVIL. - FrancisTyers · 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the link. Thank you much. DragonRouge 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per Tom Harrison and Kiumars. DragonRouge 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong delete. The title is not a useful one, and the article is clearly an attempt to write an article with particular POV and avoid having to go to the trouble of integrating it with the main page. Many of the statements would have to be sourced and neutralized to conform to NPOV. Once that's been done any statements that remain can go into the main article. Anyway, whose misunderstandings are we talking about here? Many of these I didn't believe in the first place. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. --Tēlex 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, despite agreeing with most of the content I find it unencyclopedic. There are missconceptions about all countries. The information should be kept and incorporated within other article(s).--Eupator 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the topic is interesting and contains many references Yuckfoo 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however it needs to be NPOVed. --ManiF 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia... --Hectorian 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Zereshk,, this article is one of the most informative ones around. The range of misconceptions explained here is completely true. I am confronted with it on daily basis.

--Mani1 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all above. ITAQALLAH 17:12, 22 July 2006 (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.