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 delete.  Sandstein  01:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Parchizadeh (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)

promotional article for the writings of a graduate student. Based on the previous afds, it is possible that the subject is notable, but almost all references are to his own writings, including you-tube links to his speeches. There has been no improvements since the previous afds. Had this not been to AfD before, I would have considered it for G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided He seems to meet WP:GNG, however he doesn't seem all that notable to me. Also as stated above it does come off as promotional WP:IMPARTIAL that is the only real problem I have with the article. I could be reading into the tone of the article too much. (and please don't WP:SOFIXIT me) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would have fixed it if I thought it possible, but the promotionalism is too pervasive DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. There is enough material. Will take care of it. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 02:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OK. Added a significant source and cut out some passages so that the article would fall within the boundary of the sources. Guess that should do it. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 03:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question Dear Iranhumanwatch: You indicate that you added a significant source. I reviewed the diff file which shows that you added multiple refs/sources. Can you please specify which one(s) you consider WP:RS, thank you ? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, as I have tried to concentrate on third-party sources in my revision of the article, I brought in IUP Newsletter, which I consider an important source in English. The piece by Young Journalist’s Club in Iran was already there, and I just brought in a specific quotation from it. As I thought the responses to his articles by the Islamic-Republic opposition figures outside Iran were also important, I specifically quoted them in the revision. In addition to these, there were YouTube links that in my opinion did establish or at least demonstrate his notability, but were not considered RS exactly because they were on YouTube. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iranhumanwatch: Thank you for replying. "Important" sources and "significant" sources can certainly support an article. I want to try to give the article its best chance. In considering all articles, I do my best to identify a source, either already within the present article's text or that can be added, that meets the citation standards of WP:RS as a specific benchmark. "Important" and "significant" sources may or may not meet the more stringent requirements usually sought by WP:RS. The usual thought process on Wikipedia is that such "important" and "significant" sources are not irrelevant, and that they can sometimes support article expansion, but nonetheless they may sometimes be less than the threshold needed to "bedrock" an article, unless other special criteria pertain. Do you have anything published by an English-language, edited national press, or something from an accredited city or regional news source, or anything from an academically peer-reviewed review? In essence, do I understand correctly that you judge the IUP L and C Program Newsletter (page 11) citation as presently being the source that most closely meets the WP:RS threshold that we would collectively prefer? Or is one of the cited opposition figures of such reknown (if so, who, please) that his comments are of greater impact? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, thank you for your hairsplitting method. That is what I really like. However, what I prefer is that other Persian-speaking editors who are informed about politics in and on Iran could come in and give their opinion; because at the moment I feel that I am the only source of information on an article I am defending, which is not that scientific. Anyway, I do consider the IUP Lit&Crit Newsletter an important source. In addition, of the opposition figures I quoted, Esmail Nooriala, is certainly important, as he is the leader of a party (Green Seculars Party) and is the editor in chief of a widely-read website (New Secularism). Reza Talebi is also well-known with regard to ethnic debates in Iran, and has written numerous articles on that topic. Naser Karami is of relative importance, as he only writes occasionally. Golshan is even less important than Karami, and Rokhsani is not that important. But, I did find something which is peer-reviewed: his article, Democracy or Decadence? A Cultural Aside to the "Golden Age" of the Pahlavi Monarchy in Iran, as it is mentioned in the article, "was first published in Popular Culture Review, Volume 23, no. 2, Summer 2012, pp. 85-93. It is republished here courtesy of its editor, Dr. Felicia F. Campbell of University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV)." Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 12:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor: 1. I will give due attention to the sources you've identified, one by one, as I am able, over the next few days. (note to reviewing admin: this is likely to take me at least 3-5 days, but I will go thru all this bit by bit, and get back here.) 2. Dear editor, are we completely correct in understanding that you are not the subject of this WP:BLP and that you are not closely affiliated to him ? Thank you so much for confirming this explicitly, or for revealing any potential conflict of interest. 3. Are you aware of any sister wikipedia article in any language that covers this subject? If so, can you please point (by link) to that, as I would like your help in being sure that modifications of spelling and transliteration / style do not have us miss any such foreign language article. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, thank you for your concern. Your Point 1 was not addressed to me, and the answer to your Point 3 is no, there is no Wikipedia article on the subject in any other languages. In response to your Point 3, however, I must say that I am neither the subject of the article nor am I closely affiliated with him, but I certainly do have an interest in what he says and writes to have taken up the burden of composing this article on him. Therefore, I cannot say that I am completely "neutral;" but I have tried to be as objective as possible by bringing in various material both by the subject and third-party sources. Hope that clarifies. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 11:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just realized that his analytic article, Decline of the Discourse of the Left in Iran, has also been published on a number of important leftist Persian websites such as The Union of People's Fedaian of Iran, Kar Online (Work Online), Akhbar Rooz (Daily News), Tarhino (belongs to the Provisional Committee of the Leftist Socialists of Iran), and Ranginkaman which is not leftist, but publishes all kinds of articles. Like this, I guess I'd better mention it in the body of the article as well. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 12:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate the answers and update. Once I have addressed some year-end chores I'll get to work on things. Happy New Year ! FeatherPluma (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completed lengthy, detailed review. See final careful thoughts below, in date sequence at current end of comment list. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy G11/Delete Article is almost entirely promotional and does not provide factual information relating to the subject's notability in a neutral fashion. After two previous AfDs, reliable sources discussing the subject in detail remain absent. English language sources are almost entirely primary, a lot of the foreign language sources look like blogs, and the prevalence of Youtube links in the last AfD make me wonder how this was kept. Ray^Talk 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly nowhere near WP:Prof. There is not enough substance for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• How can you judge so surely about the subject's insignificance when even a Persian search on him has not been included in this entry for deletion? And how can you be so sure that "a lot of foreign language sources look like blogs" when you apparently cannot read them? This is not a scientific approach, and if the deletion of this article is going to be based on such sweeping judgments, it will first and foremost demonstrate an ethnocentric attitude on the part of some editors. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I can't decide yet which way to vote on this case, but I am sure that it's nowhere close to Speedy or G11 -- there are many reasonable assertions of notability in the article that are not purely promotional (and as DGG points out, an subject that has passed AfD once cannot be considered for Speedy except for continual recreation of deleted content). The subject does not meet WP:PROF, but might meet GNG depending on the significance of the sources supporting the assertions in the article. Iranhw is correct in pointing out that there is a Western bias on Wikipedia that is well-documented and that we need to work to overcome. Part of overcoming that will need to take place in first having more well-cited articles about reliable sources on Iranian academic journals, newspapers, prizes, etc., so that editors can have help in making their determinations. I'll be following the debate and checking back on the article and its sources over the next couple of days, so if more sources (or quotations from the sources already listed that asserting the subject's significance) can be found, I will vote Keep; as it is, I lean more towards deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Michael Scott Cuthbert, for your fair judgment. The point is, the subject is well-known enough in the Persian-speaking sphere not to need sources to show his notability. That is why I mostly concentrated on his ideas. That's also what is usually done in Wikipedia with regard to people who are well-known in the West. For example, nobody will ask you to produce evidence why George Lucas (no comparison intended) is notable, and the article on him will mostly concentrate on his work instead. However, it seems that the case does not hold for notable non-Western subjects. As such, I think I must recast the article, using inline citations from the sources that already exist. But it will take some time, as I will have to rewrite the article and also translate material from Persian to English. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Reza Parchizadeh the same person as Azad Azadeh? I'm confused about the purpose of citation 5, is it to show that he is a blogger? -- cnn.com in general is a reliable source that would help establish notability (though iReport is not since it is user created), but the article linked to does not mention Reza Parchizadeh at all. I've looked through all the sources now and I can't see anything that would be considered an RS as defined by Wikipedia. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Azadeh is not Reza Parchizadeh. It is an alias for the blogger Abbas Khosravi Farsani who was arrested by the Islamic Republic and condemned to serving a term, and whom Parchizadeh defended by writing articles in Persian. Since this cnn.iReport account is Parchizadeh’s, it is likely that he wrote this piece as well. As for RS, I have done my best. Young Journalists’ Club is a reliable source within Iran, and you can see that its piece on Parchizadeh-Pahlavi has been published on a number of other websites. This old Tehran University blog has also addressed him as a student and scholar. The YouTube films (which I elided in accordance with Wikipedia regulations) were good sources for his notability, for they were organizational films recorded by Tehran University. I also found out that he has interviewed the exile Iranian film critic, Amir Ezati, on page 14 of the same IUP Newsletter, though telling not much about himself. In the end, this fact must be taken into consideration that since he is in opposition, finding reliable sources on him on websites located in Iran is almost impossible. What you saw was what I could find so far. Thank you for your patience and scientific approach, anyway. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 05:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep: Even a limited search in English suggests that this person is a culturally significant intellectual. groupuscule (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Once his own publications are removed, not much is left. If after all this time his very active supporters here cannot come up with any evidence of notability, then there simply is none. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG ukexpat (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Ukexpat & Randykitty. In addition, the article is promotional, per DGG & Ray. GregJackP Boomer! 19:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have examined the article's sources very carefully, and some might be "significant" or "important" enough to possibly serve as sources for expansion (but not "bed-rocking") of a general, non-BLP, article. To that extent, the deletion / redaction of the scholarship and work effort that has gone into to this article completely engenders my empathy. However, the subject of this BLP does not presently meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Although I suspect that that is probably a matter of time, WP is not WP:CRYSTAL. The language at the BLP reliable sources guideline raises the general benchmark of the Wikipedia principle of verifiability in a BLP. I obtained the assistance of a Persian / Farsi speaker, as challenged. None of the sources can be fairly characterized as convincingly meeting WP:RS. The issue here isn't whether the article is well written, or interesting to some extent, or could be submitted for magazine review, as it clearly meets those benchmarks in my opinion, but rather the technical issue of not having good WP:RS. The BLP reliable sources guideline reads, "... material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources..." It is perhaps mildly telling that a line of enquiry discloses no article in any sister Wikipedia, which is slightly (but not irreconcilably) at odds with assertions that the Persian-language community is pressingly familiar with the subject of the BLP. (This in itself is absolutely not a point of elimination, just a minor consideration.) For thoroughness, another avenue of investigation was a detailed review of the previous AfDs. Within this line of review, I found that a component element in the previous reasoning for article retention was the erroneous conflation of this article's BLP subject with someone who had "notoriety as a former dictator's son", who was mentioned in news reports. I would speculate that this mistake arose from either a good faith mistranslation(s) or mistaken identity. Of course, in fact, Reza Pahlavi is not the same person as Reza Parchizadeh. In summary, there is a consensus running through all three AfDs, particularly here, with editors recurrently looking for threshold-meeting WP:RS, and, despite suggestions, none actually has emerged to date. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (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.