www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Perhaps the time to rework and consolidate the articles about the conflict would be after the conflict has ended and there are better global appraisals of it by reliable sources?  Sandstein  17:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition largely duplicates article Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Plus the term used in the heading (title) is obvious WP:OR.Axxxion (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see so much as a mere use of this term ("Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition"). It is an invention of the editor who created the article, pure and simple! I do not say this coalition does not exist, but I would like to see some reliable sources saying that it does, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. And as i have said, ALL the info of the article is there in Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and in Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015).Axxxion (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used as a descriptor instead of a proper title. This is obvious by the fact "coalition" is used in lowercase in the body of the article. LavaBaron (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LavaBaron: The problem is that Axxxion does not know that WP:OR has nothing to do with the article titles. There are plenty of articles whose title can't be found in sources rather they are describing something! Mhhossein (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the problem is not just the title; the whole notion (subject) is an invention, as I cannot see anything in any cited sources that would indicate the opposite.Axxxion (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that every cited source indicates this is an accurate description of an existent thing. LavaBaron (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - we have CNN, Al Jazeera and The NY Times stating the "coalition" or alliance or whatever exists. These are the first, second and third references in the article. How do these fail Wikipedia:Verifiability? This is as good as we are going to get - none of us are going to sit in on meetings and confirm they are indeed sharing intel. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pls give me a single source citing "Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition".Axxxion (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, speaking of Iraq (as a presumed member of the Russia-led coalition), it appears to be a key member in Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, i.e. the U.S.-led coalition. Yes, a few countries are cooperating with Russia in its activities in Syria such as Israel e.g., but never do we find any mention of a formal "coalition".Axxxion (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In point of fact, those three articles all refer to a US coalition. The NYT does refer to a Russian-led coalition. --Errant (chat!) 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete - I'm not sure a non-admin closure was the correct course of action for the last discussion. Personally I would suggest that the article is premised entirely on one news story on 27/28 September 2015, about the four countries agreeing to share intelligence to fight ISIS. Unless there is coverage of the same topic over a wider period, I would say the Wikipedia article was WP:TOOSOON. The other sources appear to provide only a background picture for the fight against ISIS and aren't about this alliance. The situation in this area is constantly changing and we shouldn't write Wikipedia articles on every news announcement, howver widely reported. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking more closely at the article I agree with the nominator that this article is largely about the Russian bombing of Syria. The 'alliance' is only an announcement to share intelligence. I'm changing my recommendation to "Delete". Sionk (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now; reading through the sources it's stretching the material thinly to get this article off the ground. The material is covered in other articles, and mostly better. There simply isn't a lot here except a lot of tangentially related material (some of it poorly supported by the sources) hung off of a statement from Assad about the new coalition. I think that things have happened too recently to be clear on the validity of this article. There doesn't appear to be any source material since late september/early october which is concerning. Also, there is a lot of synth and POV concerns. For example The United States, along with its Western and Arab allies, have criticized this coalition; most airstrikes during the first week of the campaign, they allege, struck areas held by rebel groups opposed to both the Syrian government and ISIS. Several months of air strikes conducted by the US-led coalition, ostensibly against ISIL targets, however, failed to prevent the expansion of ISIS.; pretty clear good hand/bad hand content, with the latter sentence sourced to an article in early 2015! --Errant (chat!) 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - this article failed an AfD less than one week ago on the exact same grounds. This is AfD shopping. As per comments from Mhhossein, Guru Noel, Hollth and others in the original AfD, which I cited as reasons for my original "keep" !vote, I continue to support inclusion. LavaBaron (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like all the 'keep' votes in the last AfD were based on there being lots of sources in the article. However, sources also need to be about the subject, whicb unfortunately almost all of them weren't. It's hardly going to be 'speedy keep' with two policy-based 'delete' votes anyway. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I affirmatively state all of the sources in this article are entirely about the subject and reject you assertion they are not. There are not two sound policy-based delete "votes" (also, we don't "Vote" on Wikipedia - we discuss and arrive at consensus). Simply referencing a policy, but connecting it to the subject through a contorted and tortured manner that has been entirely disabused by myself and others does not constitute a "policy-based" delete argument. This AfD was run one week ago and failed. This is an abusive use of the AfD process. LavaBaron (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank it's delusional and/or misleading to say that all (or for that matter any of) the sources in the article are about a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition. I can see four (all published on 26/27/28 Sept) which say the four countries are setting up a joint intelligence centre. I can see several more that are about cooperation between Iran and Russia. I can see several more that are about Russia's bombing of Syria. Which source is about a four-country coalition? Sionk (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've decided to move into making personal attacks by calling me delusional, I'm going to terminate my participation in this AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very convenient. Sionk (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although we are not here to discuss the policies and we should discuss the AFD based on the policies instead, I have to remind some of the participants here (@Sionk, ErrantX, and Axxxion:) that per WP:TITLE, "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic." Anyway, I had pointed to the direct mention of this title in reliable sources before. and explained in details why the article has to be kept. Mhhossein (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhhossein, thankyou for your substantive comment. But all these sources indicate that Russia and Iran are both supporting Assad, which had been the case for years. So: What exactly is the subject matter of this article? It essentially deals with 2 events: General Qassem Soleimani's visit to Moscow (which is basically supported by one source referring to anecdotal evidence, namely [1]) and the four mentioned countries setting up a joint intelligence (information) centre in Baghdad. Both events are covered in other articles where they actually belong. Is the lumping together of these 2 events enough to make a new article with a rather contrived (at least it falls under WP:SYN) topic/title? Talking of "information centres", another similar one was set up in Amman as well: Russia, Jordan agree on military coordination on Syria, [2], [3]. Also this: Israel, Russia to coordinate military action on Syria: Netanyahu. Thus, are we to talk of a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq-Jordan-Israel Coalition? What about Armenia, BTW? A close military ally of Russia. As I said above, the problem is not merely the title, but the underlying notion (topic), which is exceedingly dubious.Axxxion (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Axxxion: Thanks for your civil and comprehensive response. However, I think you missed some facts, although you tried to clarify the points; In the previous Afd I pointed to the article by The New York Times[4] which says: "It was another sign that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government," showing that there's something beyond the usual former co-operations. Also, sources such as this and this directly mention the formation of the coalition. Mhhossein (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, you make a very good point which I agree with. However, I'm not too worried about the title. What concerns me is that there is relatively slim pickings on this chosen title (effectively: engagements in Syria involving all four of these protagonists. I guess I am saying thay by choosing this title you've created a topic that simply has no real material to cover. We're I to take the editorial view on this article I'd probably look to cut the vast majority of it, which then begs the question: why not simply merge it. I am concerned that some of the content drifts toward a WP:POVFORK and so it's better to keep things located in other articles till further down the road at least. --Errant (chat!) 18:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would pay more attention the sources regarding this subject. Having these sources, I don't think there will remain anymore doubts over the notability of it:
  • "Assad foresees success for Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria coalition" - The Jerusalem Post
  • "Assad forsees success for Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria coalition - Rueters
  • "Assad: US-Led Coalition a Failure, But Russian-Led Coalition Has ‘Great Chances of Success’" - CNS News
  • "Syria’s Assad Stresses Importance of Alliance With Russia, Iran, Iraq" - The Wall Street Journal
Please note that I presented other sources in former notes and you can add them to above list. Mhhossein (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's somewhat telling about this is that all of those sources are from early October. Is there anything in the last month that adds to the article? --Errant (chat!) 10:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware there was a 30-day cut-off window. LavaBaron (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like the start of something. Not an event or thing that is over and finished. As such I'd expect sources to continue to treat the subject. In my experience, over the years, that's a definite AFD warning sign. That there are none presented suggests to me the topic doesn't yet stand up. In fact, more recent sources (example) suggest the coalition is less firm that this article implies. --Errant (chat!) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would discuss based on the policies not on my own analysis! Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems evasive, I'd prefer to see you back up your article with sources. To be clear the specific policies I am basing my view on (certainly not my own, thank you) are WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:SYNTH and in this specific case the provision of WP:GNG which requires significant coverage --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Axxxion - it appears you didn't notify the article creator of this AfD. Are you planning on doing that? Or is that not part of the game plan? LavaBaron (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you don't plan to then I will. @Hadi.anani: LavaBaron (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. The nominator is making a mockery of the AfD process. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the source(s) for this title appear to be a mere repetition of what Assad apparently said. Does that make this a "thing" about which an article can be written? Doesn't look like it to me. In any event, it is a classic case of WP:TITLE being ignored. A descriptive title would be far better. Good luck with it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello. The word "coalition" in the page title could be lowercased if you think it would solve part of the problem. Hadi (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not really original research but taking a large amount of notable content from other article. Capitals00 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this title is a pure invention about something the Russians hope to put together. Russia is late to the party in Syria, and is not really leading the Syrian Govt or Iran who has been there for over a year. The type does not tell where or for what purpose this alleged group exists. The Russian and Iranian interventions against ISIL are already well covered in articles. Further Iraq is not intervening in Syria and Syria is not intervening in Iraq. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac: How can you call that "pure invention" given the sources above? Whether Iraq or Syria are intervening in each other's country or whether Russia hopes for some thing does not affect the notability of this article, does it? Iraq has promised to share intelligence services. Mhhossein (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Countries share intelligence all the time. Here US worries Iraq will pass intel to Russia[5] Here Israel is sharing intel [6] but we don't include them in the US led anti-ISIL coalition. Pakistan and Russia agreed to share intel, but where is Russia-Pakistan Coalition? How about a US-China Coalition page based on this [7]. Look Intel is cheap to share, easy to be selective about, and might even include intentional false info. Sharing intel does not a military alliance make. its just a nice way of saying "hey we want to look good in the press". Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again ignoring the sources? I never said that all intel sharings can be called coalition, in fact I say that a party can be a member of a coalition by presenting intelligence services. Mhhossein (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but these articles are not similar: US-led coalition is a thoroughly sourced thing, whereas this article is not titled "Russia-led coalition", to start off. And I would like to see any suggestion that it be named that first, with sources attached! Axxxion (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have been inclined toward keeping the article purely on the basis that it survived another AfD nomination just days before this one; the abuse of process leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Happily, there are content- and policy-based reasons to keep the article. First and foremost, reliable sources do in fact refer to a "coalition" among these four countries — both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal did so, as already noted. The fact that the coalition received coverage when it was first being arranged but has not received follow-up coverage is indicative of the perfectly normal secrecy observed by military and intelligence operations, and should scarcely be construed as meaning that the coalistion has been disbanded — such a conclusion would constitute original research. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It also concerns me that allegations have been made that sources cited in this article do not contain substantiation for facts asserted when in fact those sources do say precisely what the article claims they do. Rather than recapitulating the rest of the arguments already made by LavaBaron, Mhhossein, Sa.vakilian and Wikimandia above, I will close by pointing out that, while there is a lot of text on this page advocating for deleting the article, the overwhelming majority of it has come from just one person, the nominator... and, while I of course assume good faith on their part, their actions have called that assumption into question. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least, the underlying concept of this article is way premature, especially given the current talk of Russia joining the US-led coalition: [8], [9].Axxxion (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And look at this: [10]. The concept is not merely an invention, as has been noted by a number of the editors, but obviously an intended projection of a certain political agenda and thus can viewed as an attempt to use the Wikipedia as a propaganda platform.Axxxion (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coalition is not "an invention"; it has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. Please refrain from basing your arguments on falsehoods. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact, there are only two sources in the article referring to this as a coalition, and both of those mentions are trivial. By comparison (and most of the sources do make a comparison) more than half refer to a US-led coalition (or some variation). This situation is evolving very rapidly; and the content in this particular article is synthesised from a couple of weeks of sources and some much older material. There's definitely need to cover this material, but the major player (by far) here is Russia and we have an adequate article covering their involvement. This is just a content fork focusing on a minor item that happened a few months ago. --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hear, hear. Look here François Hollande in bid to form ‘grand coalition’ against IS, [11], [12]. It is a fluid sit, as pointed up above: As we have a collection of highly-placed ego-driven pricks, each shouting mine′s bigger than yours, after each round of "terror attcks", obviously organised by their "security services". The whole thing is a filthy joke. One article on each major country′s involvement in this mess is more than enough.Axxxion (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable subject with RS to back it up. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, specify WHAT subject do you mean exactly? Grand Coalition proposed by Putin (at the UN in September) and Hollande lately: Hollande calls for grand coalition to wipe out Islamic State in Syria. Or you mean the title of the article being discussed. I still would like to see even an unreliable source that would actually assert that such coalition does exist.Axxxion (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Axxxion: You can simply refer to the sources I presented above. I don't think repeating them will be necessary here. Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, yes, a couple of sources use this phrase, which we have been told is a descriptor -- a discriptor of What precisely? If such article were to exist, it ought to start from a clear and sourced explanation of what it actually talks about. A miltary alliance between the 4 coutries? Ok, then when, how and where was it formed? Like we have for the U.S.-led coalition, which in fact is the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL): Joint Statement Issued by Partners at the Counter-ISIL Coalition Ministerial Meeting. You can find millions of mentions of Martians, e.g.; but does that mean their existence is proven?Axxxion (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist things! We should act based on the sources. Nothing more, nothing less. Mhhossein (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-direct to Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War. This article is unnecessary given the existence of that article and Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War Orser67 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Definitely a notable, well-sourced topic. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted.--Franz Brod (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq_Coalition&oldid=1084326627"