Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ba'ath takes power in Syria and Iraq

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ba'ath takes power in Syria and Iraq[edit]

The content is already covered in the articles on the Ba'ath Party and the histories of Iraq and Syria respectively. As a struggle for power not limited to one particular location and occurring at different times this will be next to impossible to write a decent combined article on. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current title violates WP:NOTNEWS and, even if the article is moved, Ironholds' concerns still stand. Article doesn't appear to offer anything that isn't already present in the other articles, and since the title is inappropriate and not a likely search term there isn't any point in redirecting. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator does not explain what policies this article violates. Politizer argues the title is bad, but that can be changed quickly with a page move to different name. Politizer seems to be suggesting a merge with another article. Policy is crystal clear: deletion should be the last resort

Policy: Deletion should be a last resort
WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." Wikipedia:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"

travb (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for using 'common language' rather than quoting TLAs; if you could cease being so patronising I'd be grateful. See, I'm using this thing called common sense. The article cannot be useful because the events it documented were separate and it is covered in far more detail in the articles related to the party and countries at hand (making it effectively a content fork). I don't quite know what the purpose of your second link is; the fact that the events happened and that reliable sources say they happened was never questioned. Recommend administrator explain the nominator's statement to Inclusionist. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Ironholds' comment about your being patronizing, Inclusionist. It's one thing to say speedy keep; it's another to say "speedy keep and please send someone to chide Ironholds for me."

And your blind regurgitating of a few policy titles doesn't really help to further the discussion. I don't see how you can accuse us of violating WP:PRESERVE because the information is already in other articles, as Ironholds has said—we won't be deleting anything that isn't already on WP. Liking WP:Deletion and saying we should read the deletion policy before nominating is just silly; of course we have read the deletion policy.

I've already said why I think the article isn't valuable; now can you say why you think it is? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messages to the administrator are the norm, for example, if I clean up the article, I mention this to the nominator.

But since this is offensive, I happily refactored my comments. My apologies.

As for Politizer's more strong remarks, WP:PRESERVE "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)", this was not attempted. No efforts to improve the article was attempted. No efforts to find new sources, no efforts to merge, no efforts to talk to the creator, no efforts at all before the deletion. Deletion is the last resort. WP:INTROTODELETE, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state

Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons_for_deletion: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to...Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate). A merge or redirect is appropriate.

Thank you.travb (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the last one is a reason for a merge or redirect, not keep. Merge and/or redirect are not appropriate; the information is already contained in the other articles (merge) and this isn't a search-worthy term (redirect). Ironholds (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The connection of the two events is established here and not necessarily in the separate articles. The article on the party itself gives a single sentence to this. Argument that it will be a difficult article to flesh out is not a reason per se for deletion. Collect (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a plea from the creator, a new editor (79 edits before creating this article), pasted here from his talk page:
Can you Please Let that article stay I really like it and its like making any other article, also it has perfect information if you want me to put that article any where else on a wikipedia page I'll DO IT! Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmygod766 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 January 2009.
travb (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reads as a short essay in its current form but it can be cleaned up. I'm sure sources are abundant as military takeovers are usually a pretty big deal. The page should be renamed to something more formal such as "1963 Ba'ath party coup d'etat". This doesn't violate WP:NOT#NEWS anymore than the article about the recent plane wreck. Themfromspace (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and give it a chance At this point, this is an excerpt , section 4, from the WP article Ba'ath Party, not yet expanded,w ith the title improved by Politizer to Ba'ath takeover of Syria and Iraq. If it doesn't get expanded there is no point in keeping it, but this was nominated for deletion 54 seconds after it was started, which is counterproductive & bitey. All this effort could meanwhile have led to some proper improvement into a suitable split-off detailed article. FWIW, a general statement that deletion is the last resort does not help defend an article as much as showing what alternatives there are. However, I would be perfectly willing to have done a speedy close as an inappropriate afd nomination just because of that 54 seconds. But perhaps the nominator might not have noticed it DGG (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (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.