Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain

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. This is the kind of article which obviously attracts passionate opinion on both sides. Reading through all the comments, sometimes it's hard to find real policy-based arguments on either side. Still, the weight of numbers are clearly on the keep side. Since I don't see anything that's overwhelmingly egregious on the keep side, or overwhelmingly convincing on the delete side, I don't see any reason not to just go with the headcount.

The one comment that leaves me particularly puzzled is, I do not dispute the notability of the topic, but I do dispute the fact it needs its own article on Wikipedia. Notability is pretty much what it's all about. If you think it's notable, then it's hard to see why you think it doesn't deserve coverage in the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain

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

This is a new article which is a ~~WP:COATRACK~~WP:POVFORK for Anti-Saudi sentiment. It clearly has NPOV issues, implying that the Saudi intervention was primarily for financial reasons, ignoring much of the surrounding tensions. The article it has splintered from, Bahraini uprising of 2011 appears to cover these issues in depth, yet this splinter article simply presents one side of the debate. It's worth noting that the creator of the article has been trying to push the article for DYK, and despite 3 editors turning him down he keeps asking for re-review. When I looked at it, I felt the article should not be on Wikipedia at all, it is a POV piece from the title to the end. Worm^TT(talk) 18:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Worm That Turned's analysis. This deserves a mention, but this article is not salvageable. If there is no other article on this topic, create it with a new name and no POV issues. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article is clearly notable. Plenty of plenty sources do exist on the subject and some of them are used. The sources are directly related and I fully reject the "coatrack" allegation. The article is so notable per sources that it warrants a separate article. You can take POV issues to the article talk page, if there are any and for your information POV issues have nothing to do with AFD! The DYK nomination has also nothing to do with AFD! --Mhhossein (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant POVFORK, not COATRACK. Apologies, I've struck and corrected above. The POV issue are relevant, per my subsequent comment, and the DYK nomination and your refusal to acknowledge any issue was what lead me to nominate for deletion. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you see there at the DYK nomination page ([1] & [2]), I had addressed most of the points raised and I could naturally do nothing about the just-thrown issues which were not specific. So, by saying "the DYK nomination and your refusal to acknowledge any issue was what lead me to nominate for deletion" are you indicating that you have used this AFD as a punitive measure? --Mhhossein (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Worm That Turned: Although you're an admin editing almost 8 years here, I should tell you that please refer to our deletion reasons and you'll see that almost non of what made you jump into this AFD has nothing to do with AFD and deletion. POV issues? no problem, discuss it on the talk page. Surrounding tensions are ignored? Discuss it on the talk page of the article. I really see nothing more than POV issues throughout your allegations. So, if there's a guideline based reason that you can have for us, please mention it or I encourage withdrawing the nomination. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-read those reasons yourself, Mhhossein. Firstly, it states that it is not an exhaustive list, deletion can be for any reason that gains community consensus, but happily that's not the case here. This deletion meets criteria 5, Content fork (and a POV content fork too), and also criteria 14 - not suitable for an encyclopedia under WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Criteria #5 does not clearly apply here as we have two entirely different topic here (let on the "POV fork" allegation). As I said, there are plenty of plenty sources directly about "Saudi led intervention in Bahrain", which it self is a daughter article for Bahrain uprising. Based on what you say, Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen is WP:CFORK for Yemeni Civil War (2015–present), is it? Btw, please show us how you found this well sourced and supported topic a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE (Although the Uprising article actually has better information than this so not much sure about this) OR INCUBATE Take this off mainspace and let the creator work on it, if he can get it through AFC then maybe we can take another look. The article is POV atm as I pointed out earlier. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support your allegation and Merge opinion based on our guide lines. Is it not notable or sth else? --Mhhossein (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename at the very least. The whole thing was an action by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which also included forces from the UAE and Kuwait; nowhere does it state that Saudi-Arabia led the operation. I would not oppose a selective merge either per being a WP:POVFORK of Bahraini uprising of 2011. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is supported by many sources and even it has been the title of some of reliable sources which are already used:

Saudi Arabian intervention in Bahrain driven by visceral Sunni fear of Shias
Bahrain's Crisis: Saudi Forces Intervene
Bronson, Rachel. "Saudi Arabia's Intervention In Bahrain: A Necessary Evil or a strategic blunder?
Nuruzzaman, Mohammed. "Politics, Economics and Saudi Military Intervention in Bahrain

Also, there are some other sources using the exact term in the body and I don't see necessary to provide them. Per Mhhossein, I think content forking is not suitable here and we can have two separate notable stand alone articles. So, I think that the article is encyclopedic and we have some other similar cases such as:

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen which is a part of Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)
American-led intervention in Syria, Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War and some others which are parts of Syrian Civil War
Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) which is a part of War in Donbass
etc.

So I think that the main article, i,e Bahraini uprising of 2011, has to be edited so that we have a separate section dedicated to the foreign intervention and put the brief explanations into that and have the details and analysis in the current article. I suggest the nominator to resolve his issues with DYK and/or POV on their suitable pages.Saff V. (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing one thing: none of those sources say that Saudi-Arabia leads the intervention. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda: You might be right but my doubt stems from plenty of sources using the term 'Saudi-led' or something similar. You can check them: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and etc. Although I think you're objection is reasonable, I prefer to discuss this issue in it's suitable page if a 'requested move' is started.Saff V. (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES SUPPORT TITLE. The sources in the article itself do support Led by Saudia Arabia. The items above are examples from other articles. Here are three of the refs from "this" article, with a quote.

Ref 1 Bahrain's Crisis: Saudi Forces Intervene "News reports indicate that forces from other member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), including 500 police from the United Arab Emirates, will soon be joining the Saudis in Bahrain."
Ref 2 Saudi Troops Enter Bahrain to Help Put Down Unrest "Saudi Arabia’s military rolled into Bahrain on Monday, threatening to escalate a local political conflict into a regional showdown with Iran"
Ref 6 Gulf states send forces "A Saudi official said about 1,000 Saudi Arabian troops arrived in Bahrain early on Monday, and later the UAE said it had sent some 500 police officers."

This is a only a sample, there are others. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Exclusively detailed in many reliable sources.[11] [12] Capitals00 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Bahraini uprising of 2011, of which this is a content (if not POV) fork, which should be avoided. No indication that this particular aspect of the uprising (the military invasion) has so much well-sourced content that a spinoff article is appropriate per WP:SS. Sandstein 16:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: I really doubt if you've really checked the sources used in the article or followed the comments. There are plenty of reliable sources directly dedicated to the "the military invasion" aspect of the uprising. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for its own article, the current contents are not convincing of keeping by itself. It's likely also best connected to the event article itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That this element of the broader conflict has its own particular details and is notable has been proven by reliable source after reliable source. There's a reason that material gets spun off from a main article into related pages, after all, since putting every last bit of relevant detail into Bahraini uprising of 2011 would turn it into an unwieldy novella rather than an encyclopedia page. As well, I have to say that it's rather frustrating to see arguments along the lines of "I don't like a specific X, Y, and Z among the article's body text, so get rid of the whole thing." This is a deletion discussion. I can see that maybe the article doesn't strictly meet NPOV standards right now, but the opinion that it does is just that: a subjective opinion. The solution to that (which is possibly true, but still subjective) is to expand the article, not quash it entirely when its subject is clearly notable.
r.e. allegations made here of editors behaving badly and doing bad things: I don't think it's clear from an outside view that anyone has engaged in uncivil POV-pushing and crossed any lines. Mere strong disagreement is normal, not malicious. Even if line-crossing uncivil POV-pushing is found to be going on, which I (again) wouldn't agree with, this is neither the time nor the place to litigate it. Go to WP:ANI or someplace else. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bahraini uprising of 2011 is a large article (187 kb), so it is usual to make sub-article for a such a large article. Deletion is very bad way to get rid of what you may dislike. Even if it has "Anti-Saudi sentiment", it should be solved by using POV tag and discussion and the other ways. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Per relist guideline, discussions should be relisted when they have "only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy." Which one is true in our case? --Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mhhossein: I'm actually not required to provide any more information than what's stated in the above {{relist}} template, unless I'm performing a 3rd or higher relist (as is stated in the very policy you're quoting). - I do not comment on discussions that I may close in the future (to prevent users from claiming I somehow "partook in the discussion", and am therefore "involved" - a common tactic of users who don't like the closing result).... but I will note that relists are at administrative discretion (and this relist fell well within that discretionary range). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seemed (seems) questionable to my eyes. Anyway, thanks for your response and explanations. Mhhossein (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fairly sensible to me. Numerically, support and opposes are about equal. IMO there's a strength of argument towards deletion, but not a strong consensus. That means if an admin were to close it, the most appropriate close would probably be no consensus, and so re-listing to allow more debate is a sensible solution. Worm^TT(talk) 13:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Worm That Turned: How did you counted the opinions? are serious by saying "Numerically, support and opposes are about equal"? By the way, there's an absolutely strong argument towards 'Keep', in my opinion. Mhhossein (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mhhossein: I was just explaining the logic behind a relisting. There is no consensus here... yet Worm^TT(talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, you can naturally hold your own opinion. Likewise, I hold mine and believe that the clear consensus is to leave it kept. Mhhossein (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And that is why you (and I) are poor people to close the discussion. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        A good News! Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further points from nominator: As we haven't reached consensus, I thought I'd challenge a few of the keep arguments -
- I do not dispute the notability of the topic, but I do dispute the fact it needs its own article on Wikipedia.
- There have been a number of arguments that we should keep as we have similar articles. I disagree with those arguments, largely due to WP:OTHERSTUFF, but also due to difference in the nature of the interventions. Intervention in war is often for humanitarian reasons, peacekeeping. It is often co-ordinated by one country, and therefore COUNTRY-led makes sense. This was intervention by invitation, and by agreement of the Gulf Cooperation Council so it wasn't Saudi-led in the same way.
- Regarding the idea that Bahraini uprising of 2011 is too long, that's an issue which should be handled at that article, which can definitely be trimmed. I also agree that parts could be split out, but it could be done in a balanced, neutral manner, not focussing on one external country's involvement.
- There have been arguments that NPOV should be dealt with on the talk page or through dispute resolution. Where possible I would agree with this way of handling things, however, in this case I could not see how the article could be brought back to a neutral point of view, it is set up to focus on one part of the uprising, and without looking at the uprising as a whole (especially the Sunni-Shia dispute), there is no way to write this article neutrally. Of course, we already do that at the main article, making this one a POV fork or if sufficient balance is brought to the article, just a straight content fork.
- There have been a number of straw man arguments that this deletion is down to behaviour. This may be my fault for explaining how I found the article in the first place, however, to make it clear - this nomination is not intended as a punishment in any way, nor do I believe Mhhossein's behaviour needs to be taken anywhere for further review. I'm an admin and one who would have been happy to address behavioural issues at his talk page had I felt that was where the issue lay. Any keep or delete arguments based on users behaviour should be disregarded by the closing admin. Worm^TT(talk) 13:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This was an international military intervention from one country into another, and reported internationally on the news, in addition a number of sources discussing the event are referenced. Clearly it is notable, it shouldn't have been nominated for AfD. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, Can you please check what you've done? You appear to have included it in lists where the topic is already included. Also, how is this related to terrorism? Worm^TT(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned Yes of course, I had to check it before including them and thank you for reminding. I'll resolve the issue. Now, I think terrorism is not suitable for this article to be included there. Thank you again. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A clearly notable topic. AusLondonder (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. distinct enough for a separate article. Some of the delete !votes seem to be based on political considerations, e.g."due to difference in the nature of the intervention" DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2016 (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.