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) Jdcomix (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 United States-Saudi Arabia arms deal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of lasting notability. As far as I can tell it's just another article about the Trump-related headline of the day. The only claim to notability is that it is the largest arms deal to date between these particular two countries, and of course the fact that Trump signed it. That doesn't come close to the notability of the 3 other arms deal articles we currently have (Al-Yamamah arms deal, Al-Yamamah arms dealEgyptian-Czech arms deal, and South African Arms Deal). ~Awilley (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations and write a section there. Because of its large size, the deal could also be mentioned in Arms industry.@Awilley: You mentioned three notable deals but inadvertently cited the same one twice; did you mean to add the Iran–Contra affair perhaps? — JFG ^talk 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Is too soon, and we need to see this actually comes through but a 100+ billion arms deal is highly significant and actually represents more hardware than many small and medium sized military forces have in total.If this is not cancelled, this is super significant.Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this incessant creation of articles for every news story involving Trump is getting ridiculous. It's WP:TOOSOON for the page to exist, not to delete it. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I support the redirect to Riyadh Summit 2017 suggested below, if that article continues to be developed. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Power~enwiki above; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep because of WP: Due. The arms deal is by far the largest in history, to the tune of almost $500 billion dollars. It also dramatically deepens United States ties with Saudi Arabia, and Trump has expressed intent to have this be the jump point for an "Arabic NATO". Although early, this is clearly significant enough for a Wikipedia page. A lot of other articles with a lot less notability have been added.

• http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/21/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-trip-creating-arabic-nato-fight-terrorism-jack-keane
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/05/17/trump-to-unveil-plans-for-an-arab-nato-in-saudi-arabia/
• Etc.

PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them, including this article, created and revised extensively by you. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into the motivations of the editor - in this case - this is a huge arms deal. Arguably the largest in history (depends how we look at lend lease) - definitely the largest post cold-war. I think this article should've been created in another two weeks. Or a month. But the notability of this arms deal is clearly significant. Deleting this particular article is pointless.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Saudi Arabia–United States relations per JFG and WP:NOTNEWS. Simply too soon to know if it will have any impact at all like the other deals with articles. ansh666 22:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Details and impact don't merit and independent article at this time. DuckMaestro (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge/redirect. I express no view on what it should be, but obviously the content should be preserved somewhere. Neutrality^talk 04:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Can be preserved there at that target article. Sagecandor (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. bd2412 T 16:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Riyadh Summit 2017 (Saudi Arabia–United States relations is an alternative target for the merger and redirect). WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Delete is a fair solution too. Ceosad (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a significant event with sufficient sources available. MartinJones (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider reformulating into an intermediate-level article on US–Saudi military relations or US–Saudi weapons transfers. (Compare Israel–United States military relations.) These arms deals are highly notable and probably deserve more coverage than can justifiably fit into the historically broad article Saudi Arabia–United States relations. According to Reuters last September, the previous administration offered Saudi Arabia

  more than $115 billion in weapons, other military equipment and training, the most of any U.S. administration in the 71-year U.S.-Saudi alliance. [...] made in 42 separate deals, and the majority of the equipment has yet to be delivered. [...] everything from small arms and ammunition to tanks, attack helicopters, air-to-ground missiles, missile defense ships, and warships. Washington also provides maintenance and training to Saudi security forces.

  To me this article's focus on the sitting president is a bit undue in relation to this apparently bipartisan policy. Yes, the most recent deal is bigger, but does it truly represent a policy change? (See also [1], [2], [3], etc.) At minimum this article should mention the record of arms sales to Saudi Arabia since 2009. Yours, groupuscule (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saudi Arabia–United States relations per JFG. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep If this deal is really as unprecedented as the sources say, it should be kept.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong merge - per reasons given above. Jdcomix (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - It's the biggest arms deal in American history, and it's definitely having an effect on Gulf relations. Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Besides the deal obviously meeting WP:GNG, it is hardly the routine news that is barred by WP:NOTNEWS – it's the largest arms deal in American history. If merged, it shoudl go to the Saudi-US relations page or a new page just on the military relationship between the two and not to the Riyadh Summit, which occurred after the deal was cut. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Strong keep Conclusively passes WP:GNG and is a major incident and event in US-Saudi relations (and the history of the relevant industries, etc.). I cannot see any good reason to not discretize and directly treat it in its own article, instead of mashing it into another page somewhere; moreover, I cannot see why WP:NOTNEWS is even relevant. The fact of its being reported extensively in the news does not mean that WP:NOTNEWS obtains, per WP:NOTABLENEWS. Advocata (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to either Saudi Arabia–United States relations or Riyadh Summit 2017 for now. May end up being a lot bigger in scale, but for now the article (and coverage) looks mediocre enough to facilitage a merge. Booyahhayoob (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I vote *Merge especially in line of this reporting today: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/06/05/the-110-billion-arms-deal-to-saudi-arabia-is-fake-news/ SkagwayEntropy (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Not such a big deal, apparently: $24 billion already decided earlier, and $86 billion in "future defense capabilities under development".[4][5] — JFG ^talk 06:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: It is highly representative of the current situation of Gulf politics and the broader Middle East conflict including the Syrian civil war, the crisis with Qatar, the proxy war with Iran and the role of the Trump administration in it. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (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.