Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coup of 12 June

In this article, we will explore the fascinating world of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coup of 12 June. From its impact on today's society to its influence on past history, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coup of 12 June has played a crucial role in multiple aspects of human life. Over the decades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coup of 12 June has evolved and adapted to changes in the world, demonstrating its relevance in various areas. With a multidisciplinary approach, we will analyze the different perspectives and facets of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coup of 12 June, to better understand its importance and its place on the global stage. Join us on this tour of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coup of 12 June and discover everything this theme has to offer.
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 redirect to Iranian presidential election, 2009. The main argument on the "delete" side is that the article is a POV fork. The main argument on the "keep" side is that the article has many reliable sources. However, that argument is well refuted: according to WP:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." Therefore, the consensus is to delete; redirecting as a possible search term, and allowing for a selective merge with caution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup of 12 June

Coup of 12 June (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Original reason for deletion request:

Article name is ambiguous.
The topic of this article is covered in depth at 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests.
— Ω (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Later changed to:

See also: Prod discussion on talk page
Samic's reasons to keep

I get tired to explain everything for everyone! so I'll write my answers to your NEW reasons and that's the end.

1-The article name is ambiguous, and simply fails to meet the WP:NAME guidelines.

I had posted my suggests on article's Talk page before but no one care about it! it seems you just want a reason to remove things, but you don't want to improve anything!

2-Having to separate articles to describe two different WP:POVs for the same event is a violation of WP:NPOV.

When this article have more than 20 references from most important and notable newspapers in world like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek", it's very interesting to say this article have "points of view" problem! maybe you think all these papers are writing "opinions from people"! in that case i can't do anything!

3-This article is clearly a content fork of 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests.

As i said before in this page, there are lots of information in this article that you can't find them anywhere (more than 60%). just being about same object is not a reason to say it's a content fork.

Also you should pay attention that this article is about an event which occurs last month! and it's very soon to decide about it as many analysis will come later! --Samic130 (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Comment: I wanted to address the Merge votes here. Believe me, I looked very hard for anything which could be merged before {{prod}}ing the article. I don't believe in deleting articles, as a matter of policy, except in extreme cases. The main issue here is exactly what LjL mentioned though: POV. It is clear to me that this article is a content fork created in order to specifically advance a non-neutral POV.
— Ω (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Regard to verifiability you can see Wikipedia works on "verifiability, not truth" also under "Reliable sources" you can see some specifications, then look at this article's references like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek". It is enough references to say there is a COUP. Also about name ambiguous, there are some suggests in article's talk page that you didn't care about it. --Samic130 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering that WikiPedia's users don't pay attention to Verifiability!! Just look at this page and you can find out that this poll is meaning less!! Also who said that all topics are covered in another articles? Now most of this article isn't anywhere! --Samic130 (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Spaceman7Spiff, said "Most refs are Op-Eds, not news pieces" whereas references like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek told there is a coup, so i don't know what are "news pieces" if they aren't! --Samic130 (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
None of that is relevant to this discussion. The real issue here is that the subject of this article is extensively covered in 2009 Iranian election protests.
— Ω (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Which part of this article is covered in another one?! This article have 11 paragraphs which you can't find at least 7 of them anywhere! Things like what happens before coup, person who manage coup, events, full details of Mojtaba Khamenei's works, arresting Iran Participation Party's central committee and so on are not in any other article. However they are all about Iran but this article have a focus on coup and 2009 Iranian election protests article have a focus on protests! --Samic130 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Samic, please, calm down and listen to what we're trying to tell you. 90% of the material in this article already exists (or has been removed from) 2009 Iranian election protests and 2009 Iranian presidential election. Your efforts would best be placed in improving those articles. If everything which you've mentioned about is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then that materiel should be included in one of the existing articles.
— Ω (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
They said which part. The article's subject. If some of the contents aren't there, then feel free to move them (if they're notable and verifiable from reliable sources), but if the subjects match, then there should be one article only. --LjL (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Both 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests article are now very long and currently they divided into several articles like: Mir-Hossein Mousavi presidential campaign, 2009, Iranian reform movement, Results of the Iranian presidential election, 2009, International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election, Timeline of the 2009 Iranian election protests, death of Neda Agha-Soltan, Where is my vote?.
So after merging this article you should start with this list all put all of them into one article!! because they all have same subject!!
This article must have a focus on coup and questions like how did the coup happen?, why did it happen? who did that? why did that? what is the future or result of coup? and so on. because the most important thing in the history of a country is changing of government's form.--Samic130 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Those other articles grew out of the main articles through consensus that there was/is a need for having the separate articles. This one didn't. This prod/AfD is not about notability, verifiability, or even about the subject itself at all. This isn't a content dispute in the least. There's just no need for a separate article on this topic right now, and the motivation behind attempting to create the article is a bit suspicious.
— Ω (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You are changing your reasons!! you created this page with some reasons, then some editors came and voted, then you change your reason again!! if you find new thing you must restart this voting!! also someones vote with idea that "There was no coup in Iran" and "That it is called a coup doesn't make it one", when i say please read Verifiability you say it's not about verifiability!! also you said in this page real issue here is subject but now you say it's not subject!! every time i talked about your reason, you said it's not the reason!! so in one word say I WANT to do that! --Samic130 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the reason has simply been copyedited and made clearer. No reason to edit war about it. --LjL (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete we had an election and it was really unfair but it was not a coup . honsetly i was going to nominate this article sooner for deletion but i was pretty busy recently plus it is clear example of POV Forking --Mardetanha talk 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep the election in our country has many mnay problems.Please see this article in Persian Wiki pedia.Nersy (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you read previous objections before "casting your vote"? I ask because your explanation seems to take them in no consideration. Why, again, should there be two articles on the same subject (regardless of it being a coup or not)? --LjL (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
They are relevant subjects, but not exactly the same subject. Alefbe (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The title of the page can be discussed in its talk page, and the page needs a major clean up, but that's not a valid reason to delete it. This page is mainly about the arrest of prominent political activists and banning independent media, starting just after the election. While this topic is related to the rigged election and the protests after the election, it is a separate topic itself (the arrest of many political activists started before the widespread protests and is not just a consequence of that). There are also enough reliable material to expand this page. So, merging it to the two other relevant pages (which are already too large) is not a good idea. Alefbe (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting, because normally I would be 100% behind you on this. I'm probably one of the most inclusionist editors around, which makes seeing this reply hit kind of close to home for me personally. This particular article is so problematic though that I don't see any other remedy aside from deletion (which is a decision that I actually agonized over). It's extreme POV pushing tone will make it near impossible to properly copy edit, and the (2) editors who have contributed significantly to it have shown active resistance towards properly improving the article (definitely a case of a couple of newer editors showing an WP:OWN tendency). All of that is rather tangential to the point that there's simply nothing new in this article. Everything that is included in this article is also included in one of the primary 2009 Iran election articles, mostly in a much more neutral manner (and those two articles are being actively patrolled and improved). There might be cause to split some content from either or both of the primary articles at some point, but this article would be a bad way to start such a split.
— Ω (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I would be so happy if the people, who thinks that this article should be deleted or there was no coup in Iran or it does not fulfill the definition of coup, look at the article by details and read the highly credible references. Most of the references are from reputable news websites, articles of famous analysts and university experts. If we can ignore such a strong rational and evidence, then we may delete it. Besides, I do not agree to merging this article to any other related mentioned article. This article is complementary and specifically look at the events and evidence of coup it self and not the election or the following protests. This event has been called and named as "coup" in Iran and the whole world and merits to have a separate special article. Therefore, it can not be merged to other related articles.Andi horn (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been doing some more looking at this, and large swathes of the article are currently copy+paste, or slight re-wording for tense, etc of the 'Foreign Policy in Focus' opinion piece Ahmadinejad's Coup D'Etat. I've tried to remove the worst of the copyvios, but if the article is kept (disclaimer: my views on this are above) then it's going to need a fundamental rewrite involving looking at the myriad sources now in place, to remove copyright violations --Saalstin (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Ω" and some of his friends like "LjL" are trying all they can do to delete article!
First they tried to put {fact}} in every sentence just to say this article doesn't have enough references!
Which if they read some of references before they would understood all of this article are from references!
But with this kind of work, we put references for every sentence. after that they tried things like this:

It's obvious that they are doing what they can for motivation behind these attempts!
Instead i invite them to try to develop wiki's articles and not to war articles for their goals.--Samic130 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with a lot of the current references is that they're not sources which backup the article, they're often links to the opinion pieces which have been copied, word for word. That's a violation of our copyright policies. Before you continue with substantial edits, you might like to read some of policies like Neutral Point of View, and reliable sources, to get a better idea which types of sources should be used, and how you articles should be written, to summarise or precis a point of view, rather than copy it directly --Saalstin (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I did in fact add quite a few requests for sourcing, as well as a marging suggestion; however, they were removed in a cleansweep shortly after. I did and do believe that, even if some of those were already contained in sources, it couldn't have hurt to put more footnotes about them in the appropriate places. I must say I did not particularly appreciate having my tags reverted like that :-\ --LjL (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As an Iranian wikipedian, I don't see it as coup. This is POV. Even if we see the definition of the Coup d'état, it's obvious that it wasn't a coup. --Wayiran (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry my friend, with all respect, Wikipedia is not supposed to show people's personal point of view. This is an encyclopedia and is supposed to have the facts which are perfectly cited to several reliable references in this article. This article is a fact sheet about the events now widely known as "coup of 12 June" in Iran and outside. If read carefully and fairly it is completely obvious that it is not personal point of view and it is 100% neutral by providing references from many different Iranian and international journals with different political views including so many university professors and governments advisors who were not in fact a part of the coup.Andi horn (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As you say, WP is not supposed to show personal point of view. Could you, or one of the other prolific contributors to this article therefore please explain how it doesn't violate Wikipedia:POV fork? --Saalstin (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesnt matter if it's really a coup or not. If there's enough sources terming it a coup, then that's all that matters as far as WP is concerned.--Zereshk (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
They need to be reliable sources though, which as has been pointed out above, are not included on the page. Aside from that, you're ignoring the main issue that this page is a POV fork of existing articles.
— Ω (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's really interesting to say references like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek" are NOT reliable sources!! It's like a joke!! --Samic130 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A problem there is that due to journalistic restrictions, they aren't able to operate in the way they normally do. A great many of the articles you are using as sources are opinion pieces, which WP:RELIABLE states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact". The Guardian, for example, has explained that it has obtained much of its coverage from twitter, and whilst they are prepared to trust the twitterers, it is very hard to verify them. --Saalstin (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
News usually is, opinion pieces are certainly not. Regardless, just because you can reference the Guardian, NYT, Post, or other news sources, that doesn't automatically infer reliability. Every citation is subject to peer review, not only for it's reliability but also for it's use. Simply citing a source is not meaningful if the reason for the citation is not clear.
— Ω (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask the people, who do not have time to click on the references which are now more than 70 and read them, not to make any statement regarding the reliability of references. Most of the references are from very high impact journals and also written by reputable Iranian and international political analysts. They have been cited to show the facts, therefore questioning and ignoring them without any rational and acceptable reason is considered only as "disagreement" of the reader. Besides, as mentioned before, as this article is explaining the rational of usage of the name "coup of 12 June" and details of the events in this regard, I completely disagree to merge it to other articles. In fact, the details in this article can not be included in any other general article.--Andi horn (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
— Ω (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Precisely: this article seems to be explaining the rationale for using a given term (coup). Now, no Wikipedia article should exist in order to explain the rationale behind using a given term in the title rather than another. --LjL (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Many - indeed, all of the references that I have looked at - have been opinion pieces. Whilst these are fine as sourcing for 'x says that', they are inadequate for stating 'x happened'. Thus they are not reliable sources. They have not been cited to show fact, they have been cited to show opinion, which is the entire point of this entire article, including its title. Not only can the details from this be included in other articles, this has been done, properly, in the second paragraph of Iranian presidential election, 20092009 Iranian election protests --Saalstin (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
So what if many of the sources are opinion? WP:RS covers them: "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." And last I checked, people like Gary Sick were indeed reliable authors.--Zereshk (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Though, surely, you will not have missed the Statements of opinion section of WP:RS, where it is said: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." (emphasis mine - I'd say it speaks for itself: the title is not the "main text" of the article) --LjL (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And how does that justify having a WP:Content fork? (yes, I'll ask every time it's not addressed) --LjL (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What exactly are you talking about? Maybe you gave a wrong link? I assume that otherwise I do not see why over 1000 articles written about Iran can not be called "all treating the same subject". The page on protests, is about the protests, the page on election is about election. If you think the article in question needs certian things added or deleted, please use appropriate tags. Otherwise I do not understand what you are talking about.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already used such tags; it's a pity that they've been repeatedly removed. Anyway, the article about Iranian presidential election, 2009 talks about the election, what happened before the election, what happened after the election, and what is alleged to have happened - as any sane page about an election should, it talks about its context, the central event nonetheless being the election. The fact that you take a subset of those events and decide to give it a particular label (or particularly in-depth coverage) doesn't justify making a separate article about it. --LjL (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Iranian presidential election, 2009 covers everything that this article should, in the second paragraph - that some people have called the events of the election and its aftermath 'a coup'. Creating a new article on that topic based on those opinions, sourced to opinion pieces, is pushing a single point of view, which fails our policies on neutrality, and verifiability. If you still "don't understand what we're talking about", could you please be a little more specific about what you're missing? Thanks --Saalstin (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Some notes for the people who asks for deletion

Unfortunately, I should say that there are some WP editors widely ignoring the available facts and sources, and trying to do their best to delete this valuable article (!?). Therefore, I am obliged to correct some of their irrational changes and deletions, and make following notes:

First, I would like to ask the people who need more reliable sources, that what kind of sources you think are available only 3 weeks after the event? Do you need a History text book, or some documents from intelligence services? Normally such documents come after decades. The coup took place only 3 weeks ago, considering this fact in addition to understand the nature of the event, Iran political situation, and blocking the national and international media may help. Surprisingly, if you check list of coups d'état and coup attempts in WP, you cannot find even one reference for most of the events which took place in the recent years and recorded in WP as coup. Then if you check the coup page and click on most of the recently added coups to the page and follow them to their WP websites, you cannot find such a piece of fact established in the History text books or written encyclopedias even for them. However, they have not been requested to be deleted (!?).

Second, all sources provided in this article to support the fact that what happened in Iran is called a “coup” have been written by professional and expert political analysts, and appeared in highly reputable journals, news websites or professional international political agency websites. Of note, none of the sources are personal blogs, even though the professional people may also have their own blogs. I would like to clarify the sources one by one:

1. Omid Memarian is a journalist and blogger known for his news analysis, regular columns and blog. He writes for the IPS (Inter Press Service) news agency and has published op-ed pieces in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The San Francisco Chronicle. He was chief researcher for Reese Erlich’s book entitled Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and The Middle East Crisis. He received the Human Rights Watch's highest honor in 2005, the ‘Human Rights Defender Award’.

2. Abbas Milani is a historian, Iranologist, and author. Milani is a Visiting Professor of Political Science and the Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University, and a Research Fellow and Co-Director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution. He was also an assistant professor of law and political science at the University of Tehran and a member of the board of directors of Tehran University's Center for International Studies from 1979 to 1987. He is currently the Hamid and Christian Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford.

3. Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) is a "Think Tank Without Walls" connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC.

4. Mehdi Khalaji is an Iranian journalist and political analyst. He is currently a a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, focusing on Iranian politics as well as the politics of Shiite groups in the Middle East.

5. Abbas Djavadi is Associate Director of Broadcasting at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, RFE/RL, overseeing programs in Persian (Radio Farda), Dari and Pashto (Radio Free Afghanistan), Arabic (Radio Free Iraq), Tajik, Uzbek, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Turkmen. Abbas Djavadi has contributed to dozens of newspapers, magazines, broadcast services, and websites in Europe, the U.S., the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. He has published numerous books and dozens of articles, reports, and interviews on languages, literature, socio-linguistics, politics, culture, and history of Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

6. Danielle Pletk is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Pletka researches topics related to the Middle East, South Asia, terrorism, and weapons proliferation, and is an American Enterprise Institute expert on Iraq. Formerly, she was a senior professional staff member for Near East and South Asia with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1992 to 2002. She was a staff writer for Insight on the News from 1987 to 1992 and an editorial assistant with the Los Angeles Times and Reuters, working in Jerusalem from 1984 to 1985.

7. Nico Pitney is National Editor at the Huffington Post. He was previously Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and Managing Editor of ThinkProgress.

8. Maziar Bahari is an Canadian-Iranian journalist and film maker. Since 1998, Bahari has been Newsweek magazine's Iran correspondent.

9. Boston Globe Editorial: At the Boston Globe, as is customary in the news industry, the editorial pages are separate from the news operation. Editorials represent the official view of the Boston Globe as a community institution. The publisher P. Steven Ainsley reserves the right to veto an editorial and usually determines political endorsements for high office.

10. Cameron Abadi covers Iran for GlobalPost. He is a Berlin-based writer with a focus on contemporary Europe and the Middle East. In addition to his work for Germany's two largest weeklies, Die Zeit and Der Spiegel, he has contributed to Foreign Policy, Financial Times magazine and the New Republic. He's also worked for the Berlin bureau of Associated Press.

11. John "Juan" Cole is an American scholar, public intellectual, and historian of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history. He is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Cole is president and treasurer of the Global Americana Institute, a group of academics specializing in the Middle East who are working to translate the seminal works of American democracy into various Middle Eastern languages. As a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, he has testified before the United States Senate. He has published several peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East. Cole has been cited in the press as a Middle East expert several times since 1990. Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East and has become a widely recognized public intellectual. He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, theSan Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun magazine as well as at Salon.com, where he is a frequent contributor.

12. Gary G. Sick is an American academic and analyst of Middle East affairs, with special expertise on Iran, who served on the U.S. National Security Council under three presidents. He has authored three books. Sick served on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and was the principal White House aide for Persian Gulf affairs from 1976 to 1981. After leaving government service, Sick served as Deputy Director for International Affairs at the Ford Foundation from 1982 to 1987, and is the executive director of the Gulf/2000 Project at Columbia University (1993-present). He is currently an adjunct professor of International Affairs at Columbia's School of International & Public Affairs, and a senior research scholar at SIPA's Middle East Institute. In addition to his professional duties, he sits on the board of directors of Human Rights Watch, and serves as founding chair of the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch/Middle East.

13. openDemocracy is a website for debate about international politics and culture, offering news and opinion articles from established academics, journalists and policymakers covering current issues in world affairs. openDemocracy aims to be an open source creator of agenda-driven news commentary and analysis. openDemocracy was founded in 2000 by Anthony Barnett, David Hayes and Paul Hilder. Publishing started in March 2001. Prominent contributors to the ezine have included Shirin Ebadi, Sidney Blumenthal, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, George Soros, Kofi Annan, Pierre Bourdieu, Manuel Castells and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. openDemocracy's mission statement asserts: "openDemocracy is committed to human rights and democracy. We aim to ensure that marginalised views and voices are heard. We believe facilitating argument and understanding across geographical boundaries is vital to preventing injustice". openDemocracy has been funded by a number of philanthropic organisations (including the Ford Foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and other funders. Individual supporters have included Heidi Bergemann, John Cleese, Carl Djerassi, and Pamela Raspe, and Reinhard Hesse.

14. The International Relations and Security Network (ISN) is based at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland and is part of the Center for Security Studies.

I assume that I do not clarify the reliability and credibility of “The Boston Globe”, “The Huffington Post”, “Forbes”, “The Washington Post”, “The New York Times”, “Newsweek”, “CNN”, “Herald de Paris”, “ABC”, “Associated Press”, “ABC”, “Wall Street Journal”, “BBC”, “Guardian”, “Los Angeles Times”, “Chicago Tribune”, “The Telegraph” and etc. I hope this helps. Thank you.--Andi horn (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Andi, please understand, what we are challenging is that your "facts and sources" are . You are using commentary, op-eds, opinion articles and blogs, and using them against our policies to try to report events, rather than opinions of events. This is why you should be in the election, or protests article, where this would be correctly dealt with by stating that "x has called these events a coup", "y believes these are a coup", and sourced to the same articles. --Saalstin (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. First, I am skeptical that you did not read my whole text as I saw your response rapidly after my post. Second, as mentioned in my las text, none of those sources used in the first paragraph to support the use of the term "coup" has been a comment in the journals. All of them are editorials, news, and articles. The whole long text which I posted some minutes ago is about this story. It is to show you and others that those first 18 references in the article are highly reliable. I encourage you to put more time on reading carefully what people write rather than disagreeing and resisting irrationally. Second, the Persian language sources have been used only in the second paragraph to show that the term "Coup of 12 June" or it's Persian equivalent "کودتای ۲۲ خرداد" has been widely used in Iran and outside. Again, thank you all for your advices. I would really appreciate if the people read carefully what others write and not repeating their same statements--Andi horn (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Andi, we have carefully read what you're saying, and pointed out its problems. We will continue to do so until you address them - that you are using opinion pieces, not reliable sources, and are pushing a point of view --Saalstin (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Really, the most important issue to me is WP:CFORK. I just can't see the article being "rescued" with any reasonable amount of editing, since the whole topic is covered quite well (and more WP:NPOV) in both 2009 Iranian election and 2009 Iranian election protests.
— Ω (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You have already posted this whole thing on the article's talk page; did it really deserve copy-and-pasting here rather than just linking? --LjL (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not an AfD. This is a naming, editing, and/or merging dispute running to Mommy for a second opinion. The sources show obvious notability, etc., so please, close this AfD quickly and focus on mediating the content dispute as what it is. This article might plausibly be merged, or it might stand on its own. If it stands on its own it should be renamed to something like 2009 Iranian election legal issues or 2009 Iranian election legitimacy issues, and efforts should be made to put content about the protests in the protests, general content about the election in the election general article, content about the legal arguments and constitutional violations in this one, with summary style followed for each. Wnt (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support or Merger of Two Articles While the protests have certainly not gotten to what we call a coup, I think that the political analysis of the situation matters with what is going on. Of course, we watch CNN or BBC and see the protests going on: but these protests are not simply going on for the faint heart. You have to understand the reasoning behind my wish to keep this article is the following; You see them chanting we want freedom and other such slogans. The system of iran is like this to prevent the control of government by the elected and clearly the Supreme leaders and his inner circle enforce it like this. The Iranian people have never saw these protests as just a Reform (like Prague Spring) but this is a movement that is wanting to get rid of the current leadership as they see the problems of the country coming from him and if he is removed, then the Reform of the System will come. So does it follow into the criteria of a coup? not yet but we certainly need such an article to explain the Political side of what is going on. Rezashah4 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2009 (CST)
Err? This article is not about the protests. It's about the events that caused the protests; those are what it calls a "coup". The protests most certainly aren't a "coup" (how could they be?). --LjL (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment One thing to keep in mind here is that we're not discussing (and no one is suggesting) the deletion of the articles which have been and continue to cover the subject that this article also covers. Again, the problem with this particular article is that it is a content fork which (apparently intentionally) is not presented with a neutral point of view.
    — Ω (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia