Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamist insurgency in 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. Valid concerns are raised about the focus, NPOV, notability as a topic, and sourcing of the article. Comments for keeping do not adequately address those concerns. The keep votes in general admit of problems, though feel the article has potential - as such I would be open to Wikipedia:Userfication on request; though on the agreement, given the political nature of the topic, that if the article is not successfully moved into mainspace within six months, that it be deleted from user space, and that the article is not moved into mainspace without either first notifying me, or immediately putting it up for discussion at AfD to verify that it now meets consensus for inclusion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist insurgency in Iran[edit]

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

This article seems to be a bit of a coatrack mixing Balochistan conflict with the Iranian intervention against ISIS. Both of which are covered by other articles. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. per Serialjoepsycho, Iran's war on Jaish ul-Adl and ISIL are not related to eachother. Pahlevun (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Removing or separating the Jaish ul-Adl reference should solve the problem. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you remove the section on Jaish ul-Adl There is a particular question on the notability of the ISIL bit. There is only one source for this [1]. The source suggest that the information they had at time of reporting isn't reliable.

On a side note the name is very disconcerting. If the Iranian revolution did not have a name already this would almost be perfect. An Islamist insurgency in an Islamist country. The insurgency also seems to becoming from outside Iran not inside.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point here. I'll change my vote to "weak keep" because I still feel this article is relevant. Perhaps allow more than for the article to grow. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been evidence that other radical Islamist groups have been participating in the Iranian Insurgency, as I read on a CNN article last month. There is substantial evidence that this event is occurring within the fringes of Iran (which is why the US agreed to aid Iran in their fight against radical Islamists in their own country), so this article shouldn't be deleted. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the CNN source?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Iranian Revolution in Iran was initially an insurgency, as stated in this reliable source: Christian Smith; William R Kenan Jr Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society Christian Smith (16 July 2014). Disruptive Religion: The Force of Faith in Social Movement Activism. Routledge. pp. 47–66. ISBN 978-1-136-66603-2.. Therefore, without weighing in, this might be salvageable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Iranian revolution did not have a name this would be the perfect name for it. Are you suggesting salvaging this by turning it into a general article on Islamic insurgency in Iran?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name is ridiculous since Iran is run by Islamists, a more accurate name would be something like Sunni Islamist insurgency in Iran. The article is wrong in relating to this as blowback from involvement in Iraq as there have been Sunni Baloch groups fighting the Iranian Government for many years. Gazkthul (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - joining two different issues on opposite sides of the country. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is not greatly researched by it's main editor. I can see more potential. I also commend the comment of Gazkthul, we may have to describe that it is a Sunni Islamist insurgency, or movement. Noteswork (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What potential do you see? A page on sunni insurgency in Iran seems abit broad. Perhaps a daughter article of Balochistan conflict that encompasses The Iranian end of it? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no fault if the article is going to remain stub. Balochistan conflict is more about the Pakistani rebels. Iranian government had armed against these rebellions, it is a different conflict. Noteswork (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rauf Rigi, now deceased, was the spokesman for Jaish ul-Adl and claimed to be the Brother of Abdul Malik Rigi the leader of Jundallah[2]. It seems to absorbed a large portion of Jundallah[3]. They share similar views and goals. It's even been suggested that Jaish ul-Adl is the successor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No opinion about whether this is a notable topic, but the article as it is is not worth retaining. It is a newspaper-style account of episodes of people and groups fighting each other, with no attempt to explain how any of this supposedly fits into any larger conflict or indeed constitutes a discrete topic of discussion. We are not a news aggregator. Sandstein 20:23, 21 November 2014 (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.