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. Big Dom 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Keys to Paradise

[edit]

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

This is an URBAN myth, not a fact. Wikipedia is not a place for such encyclopedic content. Wayiran (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if a myth, it's notable given how widespread coverage of it was in the media. Should probably be renamed to Plastic key to paradise or Key to paradise per WP:Article titles. Pburka (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a fact, and therefore not an Encyclopedic topic. It's a war-time propaganda myth created by the Iraqi regime and their Iranian allies MKO. Former BBC director and scholar , Bagher Moein, who is an Iran expert, makes it clear that the whole thing was a myth " A copy of a common prayer book known as Mafatih ul-Jenan or 'Keys to Paradise' was given to each volunteer during the Iran-Iraq war, a practice misinterpreted by the opponents of Khomeini and fed to the gullible Western press as a gift of the 'plastic key to heaven'" Kurdo777 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It doesn't have to be true, it only has to be true that it was said, which it clearly was. We've got a whole category for articles about propaganda. Pburka (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is going to sound strange but Truth does not make Notability, not WP:N notability. If enough major news sources buy your propaganda, then they can make it notability. We do not judge, we simply ask for multiple reliable sources. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete This article should be deleted and a small sentence should be written in the Iran-Iraq war. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many photos and films from the war. How come there is not even one single picture of such keys ?!!! It does not deserve to have its standalone article. Just a small hint in the Iran-Iraq war would be enough. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am sympathetic to the arguments made for deleting, the topic is notable whether or not it's true. We have many articles on myths, such as the Tooth Fairy. This story has been repeated in so many books over the years that its notability can't be disputed. Here are a few examples:

It would be good if the article could include a two or three sentence quote from BBC journalist Baqer Moin, summarizing his argument that the story is a myth. Additional reliable sources stating that it is a myth would be helpful as well. Then, readers of this article can have a balanced view. Cullen328 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - subject of article passes WP:GNG by leaps and bounds with mentions in multiple reliable sources as well as a few scholarly mentions, and multiple books. Therefore, significant coverage that is independent of the subject of the article has been attained and can be verified. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cullen328. Plenty of sources exist and no valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is basically an Urban Dictionary dicdef given a "let's debunk an urban legend" spin. Merge the info to some encyclopedic discussion of wartime propaganda if someone feels it is warranted. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2011 (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.