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. This is a very poor quality discussion. It focuses on allegations of misconduct on other wikis which are entirely irrelevant here. Only towards the end do we have a bit of relevant discussion, but not enough for a consensus. This needs a new discussion focused strictly on the assessment of available sources in the light of WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhiar Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Custom and built in other languages at the same time. It does not have the criteria of fame. Persia ☘ 09:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: the subject of the article is highlighted/written about multiple times by notable media such as Rudaw Media Network, The New Arab, BBC Persian, VOA, Middle East Eye, Têtu, and a lot of relevant local media (check sources). The subject has ISNI and VIAF pages as well on the internet and is associated with Rasan (GA). Obviously this means the person is relevant and notable.--Épine (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I suggest the filer of the deletion discussion reads the section when not to use the deletion process at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process. And the one above too. I can't see any reason for why the article should be deleted.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, why was the article nominated for deletion in the first place? It's already established that the subject is notable. User Persia has administrative access on the Persian wiki and deleted the article without a deletion discussion, probably COI. Misuse of SYSOP privilages as well.--Hevi (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hevi: Also read the sources before slandering. No matter how famous a person is, his article is not made in 7 projects at the same time.In many sources that have been used, the person in question has not been mentioned and in some, even his name has not been mentioned.And it is better not to play the role of a Detective in Wikipedia!. You must be held accountable for the accusation you made--Persia ☘ 15:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persia, can you please list the sources where the subject is not mentioned as you claim? And last time I checked, there is no problem if an article is created in multiple projects at the same time so long it aligns with the local policies.
    Also, please stop threatening Wikipedia users. Your last statement constitutes as a personal attack, and such things are not tolerated in Wikipedia. Threats and intimidation do not work here. Épine (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Independently of what other people say, being an activist for LGBT in the Islamic world is dangerous, and I don't know many who live in the region, and openly propagate their views. That being said: A simple search on google for the name first turns up a zillion social media sites, before the first newspaper report on page 3 or 4 og the hits. With this in mind, and knowing that very similar articles have been posted to several wikis,I see more of a campaign. I don't say that it isn't important to also fight for acceptance of the LGBT way of life in Islamic countries. In any case: in my book, this person hasn't yet reached the level of notability required for inclusion. So delete.Eptalon (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment @Eptalon:, I think the ranking of the websites have to do with SEO of the media outlet rather than the notability of the subject you search for, also keeping in mind that there are multiple ways to search for this subject on Google, including in Central Kurdish (ژیار عەلی) or Arabic spelling of his last name (ژیار علی), so ultimately, this is not a valid reason to base notability of subjects on. Considering the heavy censorship there is in Iraq on this topic, I think a feat has been achieved by the press releases already listed in the article, which were very hard to get to.--Épine (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I live in Western Europe, and used the Latin script name, as given in the article. I am aware that there may be issues such as different transliterations, and possibly country-specific (and even personally adapted) search results. Nevertheless: 3-4 pages of essentially social media before I hit anything remotely looking like a more or less independent journal article (which only mentions him in passing) is a clear indication, and can be one piece in a puzzle for notability. Eptalon (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eptalon, that's the tricky situation, because we cannot determine the notability of international figures by searching for it in one language only. For example, what you may have missed during your search are this, this and this for example, which all extensively feature him. And like I said, where you find the journal reports on Google does not really say anything about the notability of the subject. You can easily find a bunch of articles by clicking on the news tab on Google without having to search through the pages. Considering it is a very common name in Kurdish, it is only natural that you'd see a list of social networks popping up the first few pages. Épine (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as noted by Hevi above, I think Persia has a case of COI with the subject of this article. He has gone on a deletion campaign project wide, on Azerbaijani wiki, and on Turkish wiki, on Turkish wiki his edit was reverted by an admin because he marked the article for deletion under an invalid criteria. He also misused his admin privilages on Persian Wikipedia and deleted the article without any discussion or valid reasoning. He marked the article for speedy deletion in German wiki and used the same argument which Eptalon uses (meatpuppet?), saying it is "created across different projects at the same time", his edit was reverted as "incomprehensible reasoning". Eptalon, you support the deletion of the article because it was created across multiple projects at the same time, as you stated in German wiki, which is not a criteria for deletion. You should have waited for this discussion to have came to a conclusion before you have nominated the article for deletion in Simple Wiki or participated in the discussion in German wiki. You ignore the points I made and reinstate the same arguments you made here across different wikis. I hope you realize this is disruption.--Épine (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing to note: subjects about Kurdish figures and Kurdistan had so much COI from mainly Arab and Persian editors that ArbCom had to interfere. Articles relating to Kurds and Kurdistan are still heavily disputed in Persian Wikipedia as well. It is an important thing to discuss considering the nominator is active on fawiki and most likely Persian. Épine (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fallacy, If I previously doubted that the article was customized. According to the user, I am sure that it was made exactly to order and in several projects at the same time. What does the political situation in Iran have to do with the fact that I am the director of the Persian section? First, they accuse me of abusing access to WikiFa, which has nothing to do with this discussion, and then they accuse Iranians of having problems with the Kurds! And since they think I am an Iranian, according to this argument, I have introduced a Kurdish-speaking figure to remove.--Persia ☘ 18:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You nominating the article for deletion across many projects over a non-existent criteria proves the COI statement. Also your actions have affected other communities decision when it comes to the article, thinking about deleting the article because you placed the deletion tag across the page on many Wikis. Please stop and wait for a conclusion on enwiki first.--Épine (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I know that I don't edit EnWp much anymore: When discussing a deletion, let's focus on the page up for deletion, and its merits. Who created it, and who nominated it are irrelevant. Given that this page popped up on 5 Wikis at the same time may point to paid editing (which is difficult to prove). Besides being a LBTIQ+ activist, the person is also a singer/songwriter/musical artist. So they miight use the LBTIQ+ part to attract attention to his person. Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eptalon: I always used a template on the discussion page to declare my connectivity with articles as you can see in Wild Fire (band), so please let’s not make pointless accusations. I have been on Wikipedia for years and know how it works and know the rules around declaring paid edits or work, which this is not, otherwise I would have declared it. And please stop with the conspiracy theories, you can find out with a simple Google search that he is the only openly gay LGBT+ Rights activist in the region, and the article thoroughly talks about his activism instead of his musical career.—Épine (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Épine: I am not making personal accusations, but I see that between the German and the English Wikipedia the exactly same template was used, and the text was replaced/translated. I am not against people advocating LGBT... rights, but with the tools at my disposal, I cannot see that this person reached a level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.Eptalon (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: it is on the article to show that the person meets the requirements for inclusion in this Wikipedia,so the "burden of proof" is on your side, not on the side of Wikipedia. Eptalon (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the phrases sourced by twitter, one concerning the university is still in the article and I added a better source needed tag. But the article has still many sources. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Paradise Chronicle, thanks for the improvements. I wish we collectively agreed that improving the article is better than slapping a deletion tag on it for minor reasons. Épine (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you: The respective article on Simple English Wikipedia has been deleted, the archived discussion is here. -Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Removed in other projects--Persia ☘ 07:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• /fa.wikipedia
• az.wikipedia.
• de.wikipedia
• simple.wikipedia
• ar.wikipedia
• sv.wikipedia
• da.wikipedia

Please check the wikidata history And other user edits to be checked--Persia ☘ 07:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another example of creating wiki article in multiple wiki to show that person is notable, it is not the first time and is not going to be last time, date of creating and pretty much self explanatory Mardetanha (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: After having read several of the for me understandable sources, I must admit that they often mention his comment on a moment during a crackdown on LGBT activists. Others were self published or tweets. There are other sources where he is portrayed more extensively but they are mostly not prominent ones. The fact that it was Zhiar Ali who many sources chose to cite, implies that he'll probably become WP:LASTING. There is also a lawsuit against his NGO Rasan going on. I am leaning towards moving the article to draft space in order to let the article grow instead of deleting it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there are no self published sources after the tweets were removed. As for the reason for the deletion on other wikis, Persia deleted the article on fawiki where they are an admin without a deletion discussion, same thing was done on arwiki even though it is a policy on both wikis. He nominated the article for deletion on all wikis under the same reason he has done here, and most followed through without further investigation except for Turkish wiki. On Swedish wiki the article is not deleted but drafted to improve the language further, simple English was nominated by Eptalon above under the same excuse Persia uses. I have previously created articles on multiple wikis at the same time, i.e. Lost Whispers (Evanescence album) and Wild Fire (band). This does not mean the subject of the articles are not notable and it is not an all a criteria for deletion. Épine (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Mardetanha is a WP:MEAT from fawiki as well.--Épine (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Épine, I respond on the self published part as I was pinged before: self-published was within the deleted text. Then I also find it interesting that someone is allowed to delete an article without discussion, but it's in another language wiki and doesn't concern the English wiki. I also can't really follow the arguments for delete, because it was created in several languages. My following comment is to be seen as an argument based on the sources I can understand. As to me Zhiar Ali will very probably become a notable subject (if he is not already). As a vegan and LGBT activist he has come to the attention to BBC and VOA in the international, Rudaw, MEE in the regional and The Vegan Review and the several LGBT focused journalists and outlets in the specialized press. But maybe we ought to give the article some time to grow to get a more prominent coverage. The big outlets often treat the same two moments, the one on his comment of the Asayish and the Rasan lawsuit. Besides his so-called journalism on Medium is more of a niche activism (3 followers) and as to me not worth a mention.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Paradise Chronicle, I understand your comments, and thank you for adding them here. As for the discussion, it is part of the deletion process on both Arabic and Persian wikis, but I think there are some off-wiki activities are happening because it was clearly a coordinated deletion campaign by Persia. I oppose deleting or draftifying the article and suggest letting it grow like many other articles in the article namespace. I am trying to find better sources as well and add them to the article. We can add the ((current)) tag to it. Épine (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: I agree with Paradise Chronicle and Épine. Ali is quoted by multiple notable sources, but has yet to receive the substantial coverage that people on the List of LGBT rights activists have and fails WP:SIGCOV. The events Ali has responded to seem to pass WP:SIGCOV, but Ali is WP:NOTJUSTYET. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2021 (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.