Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political factions 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 keep. Merging can continue to be discussed through normal channels of editing and discussion, as should have been attempted anyway per WP:ATD. Note that this should have been closed as speedy keep as no one advocated for deletion. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of political factions in Iran

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

Merge with Politics of Iran. No need for a list, because it is not the best way to organize the data here. Pahlevun (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator uses WP:LISTDD as basis but that page is NOT a policy nor a guideline. Relevant guidelines that merit keeping this article are contained within WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTCRITERIA. WP:LISTPURP establishes that, "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." This article is a "list which contains wikilinks that serve in aggregate as natural table of contents for Wikipedia." Therefore, its inclusion is justified. The other guideline, WP:LISTCRITERIA, establishes that, lists "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." This list is (1) unambiguous, (2) objective, and (3) supported by reliable sources. Therefore, its inclusion is justified.

Having said that, the relevant policy here is WP:EDIT which establishes that, "Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge [...]; generally speaking, the more accepted knowledge it can provide, [...] the better it is. Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge to Wikipedia[.]" This list provides a "summary of accepted knowledge" as it is referenced by reliable sources. While it's understood that the content can fit into Politics of Iran, a granular article as this allows for further development. As the WP:IMPERFECT policy notes, "incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." This article differentiates the general topic of politics into a specific topic concerning factions. No other article on Wikipedia talks about Iranian factions today.

Yet, as Thaler et. al expose in Mullahs, Guards, and Bonyads: An Exploration of Iranian Leadership Dynamics, "The overlapping and factional nature of the Iranian regime is a source of its very stability and survival." The authors dedicate an entire chapter of about 38 pages to the subject of factionalism in Iran. Sherill dedicates a whole section of 4 pages in his article. Nader et. al dedicate a section of about 10 pages and conclude that, "factionalism has been more influential than constitutional process in decision-making and policymaking within the Iranian political system." This shows why Wikipedia must have a standalone article on Iranian political factions just as this article provides.

In sum, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the reliable sources provided show why this article should be kept and its merits.

IdlePheasant (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content is absolutly worth mentioning in the Wikipedia (that's why I asked for a merge per WP:ATD-M), but that does not mean a list is the best solution for it. Pahlevun (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion and that's why we are here to discuss the matter amicably. The reliable sources provided show how important it is for Wikipedia to maintain a standalone article of political factions in Iran. If the issue is that it should not be a list, would something like Factionalism in Iran or Political factions of Iran be sufficient for you? IdlePheasant (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a content forking? If the article Politics of Iran is lenghty like Politics of the United States or Politics of the United Kingdom, I would be happy to split it into new articles such as the ones you mentioned above. Pahlevun (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you need to look into WP:EDIT, a policy, and WP:STUB, a guideline. Just because an article is part of a thematic doesn't mean that we should have everything under it. Otherwise, why have an article on the politics of Iran when we have an article on Iran? In this particular case, there is a fundamental difference between the broad subject of Iranian politics and Iranian political factions. Politics cover the structure of the system, the parties, the elections, the individuals, and so on and so forth. Factionalism is a very specific subject. Nader et. al, Thaler et. al, and Shirrill prove that there is enough information out there to merit a standalone article covering political factions in Iran (Thaler and his team dedicate 38 pages to the matter alone). Just because the article is a stub today doesn't mean that we should delete it. If anything, the sources show clearly that we should expand it and that we have the sources to do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't be able to create new content since everything would need to go into a broad article first and then be split into a separate article. Wikipedians reached consensus a long time ago that that should not be Wikipedia's philosophy. WP:EDIT is very clear in this matter when it says, "Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge to Wikipedia." It doesn't prohibit the addition of stubs. WP:IMPERFECT goes even further by saying that, "incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." That's the case here. The sources are there. If content is the issue, Wikipedians can use the sources provided to expand the article. IdlePheasant (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Political parties in Iran. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile that with the sources provided that differentiate between a political party and a political faction? IdlePheasant (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~Merge~~ into Politics of Iran. A size split from Politics of Iran is not justified. The amount of readable prose on Politics of Iran is only 16 kb. It should be around 50 kb for a size split to be justified. A content split is not justified because factions are part of politics. WP:SPLIT. It's a notable subject, but an article split is not justified at this time. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where are you getting these supposed requirements you mention. We don't have a page size threshold per WP:STUB—a guideline. WP:SPLIT, which you mention, is a mere information page. As WP:IDEALSTUB mentions, a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it." This stub provides that. The references provide enough information so that other editors can expand it. It seems that your argument is based on content issues that can be easily fixed by leveraging the references provided. IdlePheasant (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political factions and the politics of Iran are so similar and connected it makes sense to me to discuss them on the same page. Waters.Justin (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them similar. Politics, for example, cover the structure of the system, political economy, elections, and so on. But they are indeed connected so mentioning the factions in the politics article is fine and expected. Holding a separate article on factionalism that goes into details is fine as well, considering the importance of factions within Iran. The references provided show how important this matter is. And, more importantly, the references provide the material upon which other contributors can expand the article. IdlePheasant (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to change my vote to keep. Although, factions are technically different from politics, I think it makes more sense to include them together because they are so intertwined. However, maybe that is my personal preference. I think you made the case that technically the guidelines allow separate articles. Waters.Justin (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2017 (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.