Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi-Yemeni War

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. Maybe the article should be moved to Saudi-Yemeni conflict or something like that. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves (or be bold and just do it). — CharlotteWebb 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi-Yemeni War

can i consider it as "Conflict of interest"? - (there were never been a war between saudi arabia and yemen , and Najran & Asir used to be under Tribes conquest while Jizan conquered by Al-Aiyd who was againts yemeni Imam) Ammar 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this isn't a "conflict of interest" case (the term only refers to what happens when an editor writes an entry on themselves or the small company they've just founded - so unless the article was created by one of the combatants in the war, it doesn't qualify). Secondly, I'd want proof that there hasn't been such a war. There's a reference - albeit a very scanty one - provided. Additionally, Paul Dresch's "History of Modern Yemen" refers to the war as the cause of the Yemeni Army being strengthened with the jaysh difa'i militia (p 46) and also mentions some of the fighting in this conflict (pp 34-35). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• move to a more appropriate title, accoridng to [1] this is an on going conflict stemming from a 1934 treaty text here Benon 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - while it may have been a minor conflict, it cleary existed: [2] [3] [4]. Perhaps the article exists under another name; we should look for the right name though. Part Deux 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - WP:COI is inapplicable and the war existed (as noted above) and is notable by WP standards. I will try to flesh out the article using some of the sources noted here (possibly not now, but definitely within 24 hours). Black Falcon 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's give it a bit, see how it goes, and revisit if we need to. Philippe Beaudette 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note - the nominator gave a notice on the talk page requesting references that received no response for over a month (I assume because it's not a high-traffic page). However, I still stand by my vote as sources are available and even before the AfD one source was present. Black Falcon 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, invalid claim of COI in nomination, invalid disputation of factual basis. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think maybe the person is saying that the war did not involve Yemen as we know it or was not a war in the sense normally meant. That because of that the name is misleading and ahistorical. I don't know enough to say if that's true, but it'd be a different issue to "it never happened."--T. Anthony 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In that case there may be a case for renaming it, but I doubt it, given that it is an accepted name. Dave 10:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there havent been a "Declaration of war" but i confirm there was a conflict between Asir tribes & ib saud , so how about "Saudi conquest of Asir" title ? Ammar 12:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The English language tends to refer to conflicts as "wars" even if there was no declaration of war. The Korean War, for instance. Edited. --Charlene 17:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename Keep it if it is accurate, but rename it if the article name is not accurate. --Silverhand^Talk 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rename - it was a historic event, although did not involve Yemen under the name "Yemen" --JavazXT 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• RENAME war is definitely the wrong word Alf photoman 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment regarding naming: it is frequently the case that wars are known by different names to the respective combatants. Article naming is supposed to favor the most common name in English, and conventionally if there are alternate names we note that in the introduction to the article. I have not found one overwhelming name that this is known by, but Saudi-Yemeni War has the apparent plurality. War between Saudi and Yemen and Saudi-Yemen War are the only alternate ones that have any currency. Some histories seem to downplay the fact that there was a war at all, concentrating on the Taif Treaty that resolved it. But most that mention the war seem to agree that there was a significant invasion by Saudi Arabia including occupation of Hodeida. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move to a more appropriate title as stated above. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note on renaming or: why the article shouldn't be renamed - The correct name of Yemen during the 1934 war was "The Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen". However, until 1967, there was no other independent political entity known as Yemen (South Yemen was occupied by the British). Although technically, the article could be renamed to "Saudi-Mutawakkilite war", I think this would only create confusion. In addition, as Dhartung notes above, articles should be named to reflect their most common name in English. The only English-language designation for the war I have encountered is Saudi-Yemeni war. Black Falcon 01:26, 3 February 2007 (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.