Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan frozen assets

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 keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan frozen assets

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term used by some media outlets to describe unspecified "assets" (military weapons I'm thinking). This looks like it could be merged into a section within an existing article, as I don't think this term justifies its own article which will likely not expand beyond one sentence. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The assets in question are financial not military. The nomination's failure to comprehend this indicates inadequate due diligence. See Iranian frozen assets for a similar precedent. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the appearance of more commentary and a prolonged discussion of this in the news media, I've changed my vote.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because? Where's the policy and supporting evidence? For further historical examples see articles such as Executive Order 8389 and Office of Alien Property Custodian. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People will improve the article over time.Angelgreat (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fall_of_Kabul_(2021)#Aftermath, which mentions the same and allows for future expansion and split if warranted. The mere fact it can be improved is no basis to keep as a separate page: premature at this point and not comparable to Iran. Or delete/draftify. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. There has been plenty of news coverage of this topic and the assets will be the subject of extended negotiations between the Taliban and other governments fir years to come. The UK and Iran are still arguing over assets frozen in 1979. Mccapra (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2021 (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.