Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Middle East

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Middle East

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

Recently PRODded by Damianmx as "largely unreferenced WP:OR which does not tell our readers anything that is not already covered under relevant subsections of the main Middle East article." PROD was declined by Kvng as not uncontroversial. The term "Greater Middle East" was apparently used briefly by a previous US administration to signify a large part of the Muslim world. In an attempt to demonstrate notability, the article has added similar but unrelated usages. There is no encyclopedic topic here with any ongoing relevance. The few incoming links would be satisfied by a link to a section in the main article. – Fayenatic London 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Redirect Per above. Whatever little information this article contains is already addressed on the Middle East page and merits nothing more than a section of its own.--Damianmx (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I once took an online course from Boston University entitled War for the Greater Middle East, so the concept and term are recognised in academia, beyond "a previous US administration". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by cites sources. Use by a previous US administration is an indication of notability not an argument against; Notability is not temporary. ~Kvng (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that the term/concept of Greater Middle East is not being used. But this is not a dictionary and not every term/concept deserves an article of its own, especially when its more than adequately explained in the main article. That's what we're discussing here.--Damianmx (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With some exceptions, every notable subject is eligible to have its own Wikipedia article. WP:NOTDICT doesn't work here. Can you suggest a specific WP:DEL-REASON we should be considering. ~Kvng (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a prime example of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. There is nothing in this "article" that already isn't or cannot be covered under Middle_East#Other_definitions_of_the_Middle_East. So yes, a redirect to that section would be fine.--Damianmx (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a supportable and self-consistent position but it is different from the delete position you registered above. I still beleive the article should be kept but conversion to redirect can be discussed or done boldly at any later time. ~Kvng (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: My apologies for the confusion, a redirect is actually what I'm supporting, that's why I said that it "merits nothing more than a section of its own". I believe @Fayenatic london: is also of the same opinion since he said "The few incoming links would be satisfied by a link to a section in the main article." I guess I used Delete/Redirect interchangeably since a Redirect involves manual blanking of the page.--Damianmx (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating above. We could all save a bunch of overhead in these discussions by considering alternatitaves to deletion before nominating or advocating for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could boldly redirect the article to a corresponding section in Middle East since everyone seems to be ok with that, as opposed to deletion.--Damianmx (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally not considered good form to do that until this AfD has closed. Also I still support keeping this so may be inclined to revert. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for the "Greater Middle East" needs to stay. In fact, just 2 months ago retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich of the United States Army released a book: "America's war on the Greater Middle East ("GME")". This book continues specifying the geo-political significance of this collection of countries. You can easily google this book which also contains a map on Page 2, which is the same map referenced in the entry "GME". I will happily provide you with references if you cant find it on your own. Let me know. ~ AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article right now is a bit choppy, but this does not take away from the political significance of the term "Greater Middle East". I would be happy to clean up once our debate ends. Thanks ~ AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the whole point of this discussion. No one argues that the term Greater Middle East does not exist or is insignificant, but rather that it can easily be contained within the Middle East article, with no compelling reason to have a two-paragraph article just for its sake.--Damianmx (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagre. Please see my reference above about specific operations taking place to re-define the current geographic area. It is of immense significance. I have reverted back to the version that has been stable for years, until a few weeks ago where there were mass edits/deletions done. ~-AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my source listed above, I found an interesting discussion on this entry's TALK section from a couple of years ago (See below): "This is an extremely pertinent article representing the way in which the US is shaping its foreign policy. We as users should not simply include exclude countries in this topic. The geographic region known as "The Greater Middle East" is a very specific grouping of countries that high level politicians have grouped together. Please see the details of why certain countries were included in the "HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE" - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96429/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96429.pdf ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close. This is not the place to discuss whether this content should be included in the Middle East article. That decision can only be made at Talk:Middle East in a merge discussion. Nobody here seems to want an admin to wield the "delete" tool so there is no need for a deletion discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:21, 14 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.