Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Naser Amirnejad

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 redirect to 2009 Iranian election protests. Consensus is pretty clear that this topic fails WP:N. As for merging, it is important to keep in mind that only verifiable information should be merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the new article when I was closing, so it'll be redirect to 2009 Iranian university dormitory raids. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's just say it's redirect. The actual target can be settled out of AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Naser Amirnejad[edit]

Death of Naser Amirnejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

We don't need to write an article for every Iranian dead in the recent violence in the country. Damiens.rf 09:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is not even on its stated topic. Most of it consists a list of other casualties of the attempt by the defeated candidate in the election campaign to overthrow the results of the election. There is very little meaningful information about Naser - not even what sex he/she was.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid to say that your comments are very biased. The protests happened and are still happening in Iran are not about the attempt by the defeated candidate in the election campaign to overthrow the results of the election! It is not a war between Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi. The people want to gain their freedom. It has nothing to do with the election. In Neda's case for example, she didn't even vote. Me neither! If you want to know the reality, it is a war between the Iranian people and the whole regime of Iran. From those very biased comments of you, it sounds like that you are not qualified to vote!--Breathing Dead (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is about the death of an innocent person by Islamic terrorists. It should be keeped. There are lots of similar articles in wiki like this. A more publicized similar one is the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan.--Breathing Dead (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Not nearly as important or well reported as Neda - only one Google news results. And this article doesn't have any refs. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not nearly as important is a very cruel comment. How come you can say, life of a human being is not important? And this article doesn't have any refs, the article had a reference until a user deleted it. I have added 7 more references to the article. --Breathing Dead (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Notability, verifiability issues: Google News shows zero results for "Naser Amirnejad", "Naser Amir Nejad", or "صر امیر نژاد". — Rankiri (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His name is not صر امیر نژاد! His name is ناصر امیر نژاد. Search again!--Breathing Dead (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not being a Farsi speaker. Google News for "ناصر امیر نژاد" still shows zero results. I also forgot to mention that all seven references mentioned by the article seem to be non-WP:RS blogs. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google news is absolutely useless for finding Persian sources (if you search "iran" in Persian script [1] you will only find Arabic sources, and if search شورای نگهبان "Guardian Council" [2] you will find nothing). Here are some examples from Persian news reports on this subject: [3], [4], [5], [6] [7]. Alefbe (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in languages other than English are also accepted. WP:V doesn't requre the source to be necessarily in Enlish. Alefbe (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. BLP says "Persons are assumed living unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise." We can't report someone's death without solid sources. Tom Harrison Talk 17:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why don't all of you work for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting? You are totally qualified. I am ready to nominate you for the job and I am sure they will openly accept you with good salaries. The Iranian regime has expelled ALL foreign reporters out of Iran and has sent ALL the opposition Iranian reporters to jails. These are all the reliable sources that you are looking for! I have added several reliable sources in Persian language plus a RELIABLE source in English which is Guardian newspaper. There are also more sources in BBC persian and Voice of America Persian. And I have personally seen the dead and also slaughtered body of Naser Amirnejad! I am talking to only fair users. In all similar cases which involves Islamic terrorism you see a lot of fanatic muslims rush in the debates to clear the mess that one of their terrorist friends has made. I am saying that THINK TWICE and don't fall in these traps!--Breathing Dead (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right! I suggest you to read those 5 things too. Specially Assume good faith! A simple google search shows 479 results for Naser Amirnejad, there are much more in Persian and there is also a page about Naser's death in Guardian newspaper. And you are still saying that he is not dead! All these information while there is absolutely no professional reporter left in Iran, shows what? Your good faith is strongly questioned by your behaviour!--Breathing Dead (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add my support to this point, as it's my position as well. the incident involving Neda was especially notable due to the coverage which it has received and the iconic status which it has attained worldwide. The other deaths during the protests, while sad and upsetting (as they should be), are not particularly notable in and of themselves. They do deserve some mention in the 2009 Iranian election protests, but that is something which can and should be addressed within that article. I also wanted to mention that it's policy that Wikipedia is not a memorial site. From the statements above, given by the primary contributor to this article, it's also probable that Wikipedia:Content forking is being attempted here.
— Ω (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to new article. The university dormitory raids were a particularly covered event within the wider coverage of the protests, so the raids should be in a separate article under the election template. It seems like the student died in these particular circumstances, so this article should be merged into the article raids. --Toussaint (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a new article. It can be "casualties of the Basij violence during the 2009 protests". Unilke what Tom Harisson has said, there are several Persian sources for these cases (e.g. this person), and the sources doesn't need to be English necessarily. The BLP policy is irrelevant in this case. Alefbe (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to point out that WP:NONENG covers non-English sources. It specifically states that non-English sources are acceptable if an English source is not. Additionally, all non-English sources are supposed to translate the relevant portion (which is easy enough to do inline, using the quote= field within a cite tag).
Also, Tom is actually correct that WP:BLP is relevant, if there is not reliable source available. Since a reliable source includes a source in English...
— Ω (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Similar articles are on wiki about people in the I/P conflict that are one time events, I don't see how this is different; and while other stuff exists I think the same arguments for keeping those could apply here. Merge, but if that fails, keep.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding that in order to be kept or merged, the content still have to pass WP:N and WP:V. Right now, the article mentions two references. One is a very trivial mention from Guardian that clearly attributes the source of the information to "a reliable twitterer"[8]—hardly a reliable source. The other one comes from iranhumanrights.org—an activist organization which trustworthiness has not been proven—and is entirely trivial as well[9]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline is for a stand-alone article, not for parts of an article. For reliable sources, iranhumanrights.org passes the minimum threshold of reliability to be cited here in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, there also several Persian news reports that verify this incident (I have mentioned some of them in response to your first commnet). Alefbe (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to translate four of the five pages (Google Translate refuses to accept [10]). None of them seem to offer "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Translations: [11],[12], [13],[14]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "independent of the subject"? http://www.mizanpress.com/ is a news agency and it has reported this incident and the source is independent of the subject. Also, talking about "significant coverage" is totally irrelevant to the verifiability of the incident (it's related to the notability, and the notability guideline is relevant only if we want to keep the page as a stand-alone page). Alefbe (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're clearly talking about an otherwise not notable person who played a minimal role in one relatively major event. More than 100,000 people die every day, many of them die from violence. The latest protests in China alone resulted in almost 200 fatalities. Forget China. 2009 Iranian election protests now claims that this particular protest resulted in 28 confirmed and 150 unconfirmed deaths. What makes this particular individual in any way more notable than each and every one of them? Propaganda machines? I'm not quite sure if this view is fully supported by WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE so I correct my earlier comment to address only the issue of keeping and leave it up to the closing administrator to decide if any of my objections are justified. — Rankiri (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we have seen more about your GOOD FAITH. More than 100,000 people die every day, and ofcourse none of them is important as long as Bin-Laden and other Islamic terrorists are alive? Did I complete your sentence correctly? Propaganda machines? Which it seems you are a part of it. But the propaganda machine of Islamic terrorists to wipe out any signs of their barbaric acts of murder and terrorism. Naser might has not been a notable person (In Wikipedia's measures ofcourse!) when he was still alive, but his death sparked a series of very strong protests in Azad University of Iran (Science and Research University which is a branch of Azad University) againt the government which were totally unmatched in the history of that university. His death made him quite notable, however I wish he was still alive without having any notability! And I suggest, DON'T YOU EVER TALK ABOUT A HUMAN'S LIFE LIKE THAT!--Breathing Dead (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is to be merged, the main article would have to cover all 178 alleged fatalities in an equal manner or explain what makes the death of this particular individual so exceptional. I would also suggest to be more careful with your attacks. While I'm not at all offended, such behavior is not encouraged. — Rankiri (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here it is. From WP:NOTDIR: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not... complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. — Rankiri (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V concerns, as well as WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Newsworthy, but not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rename). The original article before deletions was not 600 bytes but 4.5 k about various people killed, who are certainly notable in Iran. Those early drafts should make a good start for a proper article, perhaps named to Political violence in Iran 2009 to allow for (ahem) future expansion. Remember that this is not only the U.S. Wikipedia. People in Iran might not know who Rodney King is but that doesn't mean they delete the article. This is the exact same situation. It isn't clear to me that this article should be merged with the 2009 election protests because these deaths are their own cause for protests, and in any case the decision whether or not to merge an article an editorial question separate from deletion. Wnt (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient notability of the event. - Altenmann >t 10:15, 8 July 2009 (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/Death_of_Naser_Amirnejad&oldid=1137775047"