- Jahanshah Javid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I cited several credible independent sources covering him in depth, that were ignored in the previous AfD. They were not in English, but reliable regardless. I request for the sources to be reviewed and deletion to be reversed. Drako (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin we discussed, and I encouraged/support this user to file as I believe I read the close correctly. I have re-read my close and the participation and don't see another way to have closed this. Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the correct reading of consensus. Given that at least one commenter opined delete after evaluating the proffered sources and one previous delete reiterated his opinion after reviewing some of them. No one other than the filer has found them to be sufficient. As for myself, I tend to view interviews such as these where the subject is being interviewed about themselves and their work (as opposed to being used as a subject matter expert) as better than nothing from a notability perspective, even though others prefer to discount them entirely. In any event, I don't think that a relist would have any reasonable chance of reaching a conclusion other than delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. It's not clear why the appellant believes they are entitled to a supervote against an otherwise unanimous AfD. Owen× ☎ 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Deletion review is to handle cases of deletion process not being properly followed, not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as correct reading of consensus. I have no objection to a restoration to draft space if Sicaspi wishes to improve the article and submit via WP:AFC, but such a draft would not stand a chance at AFC with the current sources which are not WP:SIGCOV (as many are WP:PRIMARY interviews with little secondary non-interview content). Frank Anchor 14:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The appellant believes the article is already sufficiently well sourced for main namespace. Being an EC editor, I doubt they'd abide by the AFC process any more than they're willing to abide by the AfD result. I don't think draftification is the way to go here. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I reviewed the sources as requested - this isn't AfD round two as noted, but this is a venue to look to see if mistakes were made. The problem is that all of the sources I looked at and translated were interviews and therefore not secondary, and consensus was clearly to delete. That being said, the amount of interviews he's giving may mean he actually is notable, meaning that there may be secondary coverage of him, so I don't really oppose draftification, but you cannot use interviews to prove notability. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I believe the closing was not correct because according to WP:CLOSEAFD, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." In this case my reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments were ignored, and as endorsers above have argued deletion is based on "one commenter opined delete" and me not having "supervote." I just want my logical arguments be heard, and refuted if wrong; which has not happened. No explanation has been offered why several reliable sources were dismissed. Please read my arguments and judge for yourself:
- Sources I have offered might have included interviews, but they also include plenty of secondary and independent material covering and paying attention to this person. Such material is what contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline. Even in the interviews, He is the subject of the interview. That's what matters. He is not being interviewed about some third person or subject, he is being interviewed about himself because these reliable international sources who have been independent from him, are giving him "significant press coverage." He is the main subject of an episode of this BBC programme and publish an article exclusively about him. This programme is covering him in depth, and significantly. Of course the BBC producer would want to talk to the person he is covering, that does not reduce the significance of this coverage! If a biographer is writing a book about a notable person, of course they would want to talk to subject of their book and they may quote him/her. Significance of coverage is because of the producer choosing to cover him in depth. VOA Persian's main host interviewing him on his show and asking him hardball questions is hardly not a secondary, indpenendet source.
- Numerous reliable sources have cited him for his historical contribution of establishing one of the first websites in a country. For example, The Radio Farda journalist calls him one of the "prioneers of publishing on internet [in Iran]" This is what WP:ANYBIO postulates as a sufficient condition of notability.
- It is not necessary for English Wikipedia articles sources to be in English. This person has made most of his contributions in a different language, and he should not be punished for that. WP must be written from a global perspective, and emphasizing on English-only sources as in this review risks adding to the WP regional bias. Drako (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as per the other editors. The appellant apparently either expects this to be AFD round 2, or expects DRV to say that the closer should have supervoted. The close of Delete was the only close possible. The appellant asks for a reasonable, logical, policy-based discussion, and at this point the mechanism for that discussion is the submission of a draft for review. Also, the editors here at DRV are providing reasonable, logical, policy-based criticisms of the appellant's sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The appellant is bludgeoning this DRV, just as they bludgeoned the AFD, and the editors at AFD and DRV often Use Common Sense and ignore the bludgeoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. When there is one keep and four delete votes (including the nom), the keep vote would need to be exceptionally strong (and the delete votes being very weak) for a NC or keep close to occur. In this case, the sole keep vote cites a reasonable interpretation of guidelines, but so does the delete votes. As such, with the strength of the arguments equal, the closer should defer to the numerical majority- in this case delete. VickKiang (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
