Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 21 July 2006

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. 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)

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)

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

• 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)
• Delete seems to fail WP:NOR. - FrancisTyers · 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely unencyclopedic and a POV magnet.--Jersey Devil 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
• Comment for Closing Admin The user 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. (Misplaced Pages:Spam) --Jersey Devil 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Delete per Pablo D. Flores above Tom Harrison 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep contents (HIGHLY INFORMATIVE!) but not article by itself! Should be linked as reference to IRAN article!--Pantherarosa 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced POV. --InShaneee 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know what Inshanee means by 'unsourced POV". The article is informative and cites more sources than many articles on Misplaced Pages. Might need some additional work though, but there's no reason to delete the article. His Excellency... 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Comment he is removing those comments because it is against Misplaced Pages 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)