Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Oil Bourse

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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian Oil Bourse

there's no indication that anything will become of this "bourse". given that, the only other thing i can think of to do with this article would be to merge it to "planned exchanges that never happened". the question is, should it be deleted now or given more time (or merged)? Bob A 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominator forgot to list on the AfD logs; completing nomination. --cesarb 02:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bob A is factually incorrect as this "bourse" is mearly a propossed addition to the Tehran_Stock_Exchange. If anything this should be merged in to that article but I belive the current geopolitical ramifications of trading oil in euros warrents a seperate article Carbonate 12:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree strongly with all the comments opposing the deletion of this article. While it is definitely in need of updating - what's the situation now, etc., to delete this page seems like a covert agenda intended to render invisible serious motivations for continued American military threats against Iran. To delete this article is a ridiculous proposition. Erik 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was a newsworthy event for months, causing much speculation and discussion. Deletion would seem more than a little revisionist, particularly given the current threats against Iran. — JEREMY 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against deletion. The fact that the opening of the Iranian Bourse has been posponed for geopolítical reasons or may be cancelled is not enough reason to destroy the information. At the time when the US is threatening Iran is just normal to expect projects to be put on hold. The article just needs to state that and explain the whole story, why it happened or why it didn't.--tequendamia 04:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• "Against deletion" Despite the fact the IOB did not open on the scheduled date, there is still important and relevant information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.82.120 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 April 2006
• Against deletion. Wow, i can't believe that anyone could be considering deleting this article! The intention to establish an alternative to the petrodollar, thus financially harming the U.S., seems like a pretty valid reason for the U.S. to attack Iran. Certainly a better reason than to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, of which there is no evidence. Please don't let this page disappear 'down the memory hole'. -- Mark is Happy 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Factual and relevant. Brisvegas 23:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Factual, relevant, and notable. Bill Sayre 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing has changed since the article was created: the tensions with Iran still exist, and this topic is still in the news. Hmm, I don't know much about finance: is "bourse" really the right word for this? I only know it as the French word for "purse". --Saforrest 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep factual, still relevant. Sheehan (Talk) 05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even if the bourse is not operative (yet), the fact that it has been in the news for almost two years now make the plans notable. David Sneek 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, factual, relavant, encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, as developments such as this in the oil market (basically setting up, IIRTC, a new market to bypass OPEC) are inherently important, even if they come to naught. Pat Payne 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• support - per all above --Benon 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep see above Blink484 22:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pat Payne Blink484 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep factual, very relevant Frankman 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pat Payne Barnetj 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I don't know French, but it sounds right; the Brazilian Portuguese words for "stock exchange" is "bolsa de valores", and "bolsa" is the Portuguese word for "purse". --cesarb 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Traditionally a bourse is a currency exchange, not a commodities exchange. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and I'm undecided whether detail on a not-yet-realized proposal belongs in its own article, rather than a sub-article on conflict between political factions within Iran. What I consider important (and very dangerous) is that some people call this proposal "a pretty valid reason for the U.S. to attack Iran." No vote. Barno 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which would make it pretty notable, IMHO.

RGTraynor 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:V, it doesn't qualify based on a Wikipedia editor (or a consensus of them) saying something like that; it qualifies now only if this is among the comments from current and former Bush Administration military and national-security experts which have been reported by the major media in recent weeks. However, if Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld think that way, then it will soon become very notable. Perhaps we should keep and expand the article based on what has been published; but in most cases there are large numbers of grand proposals that die out or are replaced by something else. Barno 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but, it seems rather strange that now this is regarded by some as a useless piece of news. I cannot help thinking that there is some hidden agenda here. Official Revisionism.--tequendamia 04:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts: Nobody here called it "useless", nor attempted to revise anything to meet any hidden agenda. The question here is whether it's encyclopedic content that will be worth reading in an encyclopedia one hundred years from now, or if it's just news whose current importance (and potential future greater importance) will soon be overtaken by later developments. Please note that wild imprecise charges are likely to lead editors to discount your comments as violations of the policies WP:NPOV (which doesn't control AfD comments as it does articles, but ought to be kept in mind) and WP:NPA. Barno 05:12, 11 April 2006 (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.