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

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. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition[edit]

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

This is not even a real thing, more an informal thing. "According to Russia, which is bombing rebel targets in Syria in support of its ally President Bashar al-Assad, has already forged close cooperation with the governments of Iraq, Syria and Iran, which are all part of a loose Shi'ite alliance pursuing different aims from those of the United States and its allies." http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-jordan-idUSKCN0SH1ER20151023 Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: So what? Are you questioning the notability?Mhhossein (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To be frank, the nomination is flawed and the case has to be handled with more delicacy. Formation of the coalition is supported by different sources. "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," according to The New York Times [1]. One may point to the well announced agreement of Iraq, a part of the coalition, "to share intelligence with Russia, Iran and Syria," as the CNN says.[2] Moreover, formation of this coalition has been verified by Assad, Syria's president.[3] I found some other sources such as this and this. Also, these two sources show Iran's role in this coalition and how General Soleimani's meeting affected it. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the article by Aljazeera entitled "Iraq, Russia, Iran and Syria coordinate against ISIL."[4] to my comments. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mhhossein's rationale and Merge to Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq-Jordan Coalition page which now includes Jordan in the naming structure as they have established a joint military command centre in Amman. Guru Noel (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am questioning the notability. Russia and the US are even working together [5] Guru Noel to deconflict and Jorden has hardly switched sides to become allies with Iran - that would put them at odds with their GCC partners. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and is adequately sourced to RS. Legacypac's observation that it is "not a real thing," is correct insofar as it is not a treaty-built formal alliance like NATO or SEATO, but rather an ad hoc military arrangement. However, we have numerous precedents of ad hoc military arrangements having WP articles, such as Eight-Nation Alliance, etc. However, in deference to his point, we should start the word "coalition" with a lower-case letter instead of capital letter. LavaBaron (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps with an alternative title for the reasons LavaBaron stated (military partnership?). It has enough RS as far as I am concerned.Hollth (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If not delete, then merge with Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War which already covers the cooperation with Iran and Assad in depth. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: I suggest you to withdraw this AFD and start the merger proposal if you think it should be merged. Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 09:50, 28 October 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.