Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran lobby in the United States

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. Sandstein 07:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iran lobby in the United States

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

Procedural nomination, following concerns raised about the article in email correspondence, which I've looked into and with which I concur, to a degree. I notified a number of projects and relevant talkpages about the article some months ago, but there's been very little movement since.

Summarising the correspondent's concerns: the article has significant POV issues, with excessive focus on individuals, and relies heavily on sources from involved parties. Much of the material is about Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council, using material previously and independently rejected in those articles; the talkpages of those articles suggest that Daioleslam and Front Page are not considered reliable sources in these contexts.

There is some usable material, and in theory, these are arguments for cleanup rather than deletion. However, there is no "good version" to revert to, and I'm not sure what a neutral version of the page could look like; it may be simplest to delete (or cut down and merge?) and reconstruct the useful material in other articles - perhaps Iran–United States relations - where it can be put in context. Suggestions welcome; as I say, this is not a field I'm very familiar with. Shimgray | talk | 23:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article is clearly biased, written like a screed, and unduly implies motive on a living person. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In some parts it reads as an op-ed piece and there is a BLP issue as noted by Xavexgoem. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 14:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean it up. Difficulty in removing bias is unrelated to the worthiness of the topic. If reliable sources indicate that an Iran lobby does exist in the US, then the topic is notable. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and probably WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if we disregarded or tried to clean up the BLP attacks, the POV slant, the FORK-ish nature, and the serious formatting issues, I only see a single reliable source, the FT article cited once. I don't see how this even passes WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE. Please, lobby me. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (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.