Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Golestaneh (2nd nomination)

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. I see no other way to close this discussion, after 3 relistings as there is no support for deletion other than from the nominator. I think a more decisive closure would have resulted from more participation in this AFD but except for hot topics like the Middle East conflict, participation is down in AFDs these days and we have to bring this to a close with opinions that have been offered despite the disagreement over the quality of coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Golestaneh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional UPE article with WP:REFBOMB created by a blocked sock (part of this sock farm) that doesn't look notable. The quality of references are not really good, mostly promotional sources, non-independent, primary, paid links etc. The keep result of first nom is rather weak, with low number of participants and they are stating they are not really sure because of the language and being unfamiliar with the sources. First vote says "I agree the case for notability seems thin", second one says "weak keep" by "reading through Google translate" and stating "unsure", third one says "probably". So I think that's not a strong keep result. The thing is, it seems that the people who can read the language and properly evaluate it have deleted it twice on the Persian wiki, despite attempts with the socking: [1] [2] Since the result of the first nom was rather weak with users who don't know the language and I saw that people who know the language deleted it twice from Persian wiki and did not allow to be opened again, I decided to nominate it again. The existence on simplewiki and frwiki is a result of cross-wiki spamming as well, will tag them for deletion too. Tehonk (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Health and fitness, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Keep I checked that the removal request has been sent twice in the last month and the users have reached a consensus that it should stay. Therefore, I think this request is useless.

~~I agree to Keep because it has been recognized once Khtibkiarash (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)~~ — Khtibkiarash (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Kiava (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I edited this article for a Guild of Copy Editors a while back. At the time, I looked closely at all of the sources and found adequate documentation for notability. The sources include several feature articles, including coverage both as a competitor and as an international judge. The prior deletion discussion was just several months ago; this is really a waste of time for those involved with this article and the prior debate. Rublamb (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained how previous AfD result was weak and it did not really have strong arguments for keep. I'm not convinced whether you really checked the sources by evaluating their quality in terms of independence, reliability, and significance, or whether you only looked at their existence. You're not showing any source either here or in previous AfD. Checking the history, even though a lot of spam and REFBOMB cleanup was performed in the article, it still suffers from WP:REFBOMB and my spot check on the refs did not find refs that would meet notability standards, as explained. I couldn't find in-dept independent SIGCOV from reliable sources to justify notability, the links were all spam and PR quality. Please show WP:THREE best sources from this REFBOMB so we can evaluate them. Tehonk (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources to see if they backed the content of the article. I just ran through half of the sources again. They are either news websites or websites of international organizations that host competitions. Some of the longer articles about him include references 15, 20, 21, 2, 4, 6. If you see a source that you do not believe is appropriate, the solution is to remove it. We don't delete articles because they have too many sources. Rublamb (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suffering from REFBOMB does not mean it simply has too many sources, it means it was purposely filled with crap sources to "create a superficial appearance of notability". And that's what I see here. Please read the link and points explained there, don't just assume only from its shortcut name. I'm not nominating it for having too many sources, I'm nominating it for lack of in-depth, significant, independent reliable sources.

Checking the sources you mentioned (although I asked for three best sources):

2= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, it's an interview.

4= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, republishing of an interview from same place

6= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, one sentence routine coverage of being a runner-up

15= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, it's an interview.

20= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, it's an interview and announcement from the subject himself, looks more like a press release.

21= Again, not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, both WP:TRIVIALMENTION and just repeats his words, therefore not independent

So even though you showed six instead of three best sources, none of these meet standards for notability like what I observed when I checked it already. Tehonk (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using an interview article as a source--see WP:INTERVIEWS which says "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." In this instance, the interview articles fulfill the requirement fo significant coverage. In addition, statements of the writers/editors of the interviews are used in the article; the content is from someone other than the subject. For example, saying that the subject has been appointed, has won, serves as a judge, or has a fitness nickname. He is not the one saying this is his nickname; that is coming from an editor and/or the news outlet. There are other sources that confirm facts, such as his rank in contests. These sources do not count as significant coverage but do back content from the interview articles. Rublamb (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be independent SIGCOV, interviews are not independent, in this case, these do not have any parts that could be considered independent and they are mostly promotional pieces, likely paid things. And they are not "multitude of interviews" as well because they are pretty much from same outlet.

I need to see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic and I'm not seeing that. Tehonk (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of couse most are from the same source--he lives in Iran where the media is limited and tightly controlled. It would be like saying sources for the former USSR were all from Pravda. Borna News is the top sports news outlet of Iran and receives state funding but is not necessarily controlled by the state. See here for independent confirmation of this. This really is the best source for Iranian sports news as far as I can tell and should be considered reliable for this type of coverage. Rublamb (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything posted on a reliable source contributes to notability. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, interviews are not independent unless they contain significant commentary, and none of these have that. You were not able to show a single independent SIGCOV to contribute to notability here. Tehonk (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. User:Tehonk, it is fine to offer a rebuttal to comments you disagree with but please let's not be adversarial here. This is a discussion between well-meaning editors who might have different viewpoints on SIGCOV and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see this thread at ANI:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing with implied racism accusation ^permalink

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the discussion about the sources is decent enough; there is a ton of crap sourcing, but we have some evidence that it's at notability. What I find is pretty much as explained in the source analysis. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (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.