Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoroastrian Students' Association

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. We appear to be split on this issue, and as it has been relisted twice already it doesn't seem the debate is going to reach any sort of actionable consensus. Sourcing does appear to be an issue in spite of this close and I would hope some of those speaking of systematic bias would seek to work to improve the referencing rather than abandoning the topic after this debate. KaisaL (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrian Students' Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No indications in the article that the organization or its "famous" events have been the subject of any significant independent coverage, nor can any be found. It should be noted that all citations presently given in the article are from kdz.ir, the organization's own website.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Iranian organization has been active since 1969 and appears to be one of the oldest functioning Zoroastrian youth organizations in that nation. I would be surprised if there is much English-language media coverage, since it is not an international group, and in view of the ongoing concerns of systemic bias on Wikipedia I would hope that some effort could be made to confirm the subject's notability - perhaps with the help of editors fluent in Persian - rather than rush this to deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In addition to English language sources, I also searched for "کانون دانشجویان زرتشتی", the group's Persian name, and found little in the way of independent significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see what others have to contribute to improving this article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed to determine the consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened a non-admin closure and relisted this discussion as there is not sufficient discussion at this time to determine a consensus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Keep, per adoil 92.9.158.191 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @92.9.158.191: Adoil's comment was that there should be sources, based on the age of the organization, and that a search in Persian might prove fruitful. I replied to him there, and I'll reply to you here, the possibility of sources is not what is needed; the actual presence of sources is what is needed. If you can find the sources, please do so. Otherwise, without independent sources, the article should not be allowed to remain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misquoting me. I never said "that there should be sources." Your eagerness to erase this article is already noted. Now, please let other editors participate in this discussion without chasing them and insisting they are wrong. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I sympathize with the discussion about "systemic bias," on Wikipedia, I too was not able to locate any independent sources on this subject. The fact of the matter is that if verifiable and independent sources don't exist, the article doesn't pass WP:GNG let alone WP:ORG. Organization age isn't an indication of notability, third-party coverage is. Absent of someone else discovering some good sources (which is possible, but hasn't happened yet), this should be deleted. ERK^talk 09:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are hardly any third party sources which can satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Multiple third party sources are needed to show that an organisation is notable. Even searching for the Persian name doesn't bring up these. From the Persian language sources I found and translated with Google, I managed to verify 2 facts - 1. It is a student organisation. 2. It is registered with the ministry of interior or some equivalent. None of these however talk about the organisation in detail or offer any details about it. Significant coverage in reliable and independent sources are needed for passing WP:GNG, which is not available here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up English language sources will find that a "Zoroastrian Students' Association" exists in some universities in US/Europe. However, whether these are related to the organisation in Iran is questionable. Since this is not a WP:BRANCH and doesn't satisfy WP:CLUB, I do not see a need for keeping this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iran's Zoroastrian population is marginalized and it is not likely that it would receive generous attention from the IRNA or other government-blessed media sources. I would rather err on the side of caution, as per Adoil's acknowledgement of the systemic bias problems on this website, than delete because casual search engine queries don't pull up numerous sources. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand all about the systemic bias at Wikipedia, and also the likelihood that the Zoroastrian Students' Association would receive any significant coverage might be low, but we at Wikipedia can't be held responsible for the facts in the world that render reliable sources unavailable, we can just react to the fact that reliable sources are unavailable by sticking to our own policies. If people would like to address the policy to say that we require reliable sources except when the topic is somehow marginalized, that's a windmill to tilt at elsewhere, but for now, we have the guidelines we have. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, if the so-called "reliable sources" are available regarding this organization, then most likely they are not online, given the Iranian government's heavy censorship of online information, especially in regard to the non-Muslim populations within the Islamic Republic. And the fact a non-Muslim organization founded in Iran in 1969 is still around is certainly no small accomplishment. But the argument to delete an article because you can't find the subject on Google shows ignorance on the subject of religious minorities in Iran. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Capt. Milokan:, Verifiability is key on Wikipedia. Keeping articles because "sources may exist" compromises the quality of the encyclopaedia. I have previously seen a case where an editor claiming to be from Nepal argued to keep a hoax article about an alleged Nepali language - and tried to use the systemic bias as a shield. In this case, unless we can verify facts about the organisation, I wouldn't want to keep it. I'm myself an editor from a part of the world which is affected by systemic bias. However, I have never felt the reason to compromise on verifiability. Systemic bias needs to be fought but Wikipedia's key policies such as WP:V cannot be bent. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Capt. Milokan: To reiterate what Lemongirl has said, and to respond to your comment: I understand why online sources for this organization might be scarce. That is why we allow the AFD to run for several days: to allow people who are close to the subject (the article's authors, perhaps) time to find what sources they can. And print sources are fine, if they are publicly available for review. But if no sources exist (even if the reason no sources exist is because of religious repression) than we have no basis for an article. That's unfortunate, but it is not Wikipedia's job to fight the ills of the world; only to report as fairly as possible in the face of those ills. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:35, 3 July 2016 (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.