Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Adjalli

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Yunshui 雲水 10:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Adjalli[edit]

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

Ali Adjalli (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable individual. This is far from the basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral (See below) - there seems very little (accessible?) coverage on this author. As well as a number of 1 line mentions when a piece of art is being shown, there are a few books that come up with his name, but have no content viewable (and no indication its present in abstract etc). In this source it would seem most of the mention is on a piece of his work, rather than he himself. Thus I don't feel WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC are satisfied. There doesn't appear to be a logical redirect target, thus delete seems the only option. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no RS found in a search of Google Web, News and Books.96.127.244.27 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
96.127.244.27 and Nosebagbear you might want to take a look at فرهنگ2016's source that I think satisfies NPROF. --Theredproject (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::Will have a look tomorrow - please feel free to ping me in a couple of days if I haven't changed or confirmed Nosebagbear (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the extra source, and to the certainly limited degree that I can interpret it, I don't believe the actual reliable content (I'll assume فرهنگ2016 is correct about the site being reliable) on the page is sufficient. The content below seems more like site commentators (both in style and content), and I don't believe Sig Cov is met otherwise. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It appears that this source isn't what it was supposed to be, but I think there is enough added below for me to keep my vote as it. In partcular, I think Vanamonde's analysis is very solid.--Theredproject (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Neutral change - So two of فرهنگ2016's sources 3 & 4 provide good Sig Cov (5 might as well, I can't translate that. The rest fail completely on that front, with independent issues on a couple. I am incapable of judging reliability of these sources, making me incapable of judging either good (Keep) or bad (delete). With me being this unsure, I think Neutral is the only reasonable !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I came along to close this, but I find myself !voting instead because I was rather dissatisfied with the level of research that's gone into many of the arguments. This is rendered difficult by my lack of knowledge of Persian, but even just in English we have one very detailed account of his work with 24 citations listed on google scholar [12] (page 47), one detailed analysis of a piece of art made by him [13], two sources attesting to his significance as an artist even they do not provide much detail [14] [15], and several more that are difficult to evaluate because the text is unavailable, but which are unquestionably reliable (and no, I'm not counting the Books LLC publication) [16]. Under these circumstances, I find it quite unlikely that no reliable sources in Persian discuss this individual. Vanamonde (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 02:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I am currently working on upgrading the references in the article (which as has been pointed out leave a lot to be desired) and while I have made some progress to date, I expect to add further high quality references over the next few days. Having read some of the sources, it is clear that the artist/ calligrapher is a notable Middle Eastern artist and calligrapher. However, the main problem with the article is the poor quality referencing - and this is being addressed. Sources are available in both English and Arabic/Persian, the artist has exhibited in many galleries for which illustrated catalogues are available and is mentioned in several books published by reliable publishers. No doubt that this article can be expanded and cleaned up. The other problem mentioned in the deletion discussion was that the article was an orphan - but this has already been remedied. This article adds to the body of work on Iranian art and also on Islamic calligraphy and has a rightful place on Wikipedia. BronHiggs (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I should also have mentioned that the main issue with this article, as stated in a tag at the top of the page, is that places too much reliance on primary sources. This assertion should have been disputed years ago, and could have been dismissed as nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion eons ago. In fact, the references were mainly to Persian newspaper/magazine articles, which other editors have pointed out were difficult to interpret. But just because a Wikipedia editor cannot understand the language used by a source, doesn't mean that assumptions can be made about those sources being primary, rather than secondary or tertiary. As far as I can establish, the article does not use, and has not for a long time, used primary sources. For my own part, I do not approve of an over-reliance on foreign language sources in an English language encyclopedia due to the difficulties validating factual comments. However, some foreign language articles may be necessary to flesh out the details of a subject's life and career. This is particularly true for Middle-Eastern artists because Western art historians and art critics have largely ignored developments taking place in the region. For this reason, the article now includes a reasonable mix of English, Arabic and Persian sources. And, when those sources broadly align with respect to key details, as they do in this case, it should give readers confidence that the article's contents are both accurate and comprehensive. BronHiggs (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Adjalli&oldid=858458765"