Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Parchizadeh

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. bd2412 T 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Parchizadeh

edit
Reza Parchizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. No third party sources provided. The article is more like a résumé than a Wikipedia article. Farhikht (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's "determination" plays any part in the matter: the subject does not appear to have received adequate coverage in reliable third-party sources, the principal test of notability. If I'm wrong and such sources exist, please bring them forward; if they do not, what will form the basis for the article are how will readers be able to verify its claims? The reason for the lack of such sources is immaterial: without them, there is nothing to construct an article out of except original research, which is not acceptable, and primary sources, which are not sufficient. And if I am wrong and you are neither the subject of the article not also editing as User:Xayyam, you have my apologies. Nevertheless, the timing and coincidental common interest are curious. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with you guys, including User:Timelesstune, is that you heavily rely on the information on the Internet as a standard of recognition, while this does not necessarily apply to cases such as Iran where even the most famous people (one of whom the subject of this article cannot be considered) are subjected to obscurity for many different causes, and it is not to mention hevay Internet censorship. I think it would be fair to consider the matter in this light as well. The reason I saw it was alreday time somebody wrote something on him was that recently a few of his works were published in Europe, substantiating all the years of his well-known activity in the field. Therefore, contrary to User:Timelesstune, I will not go on a strike, and will punlish any proof I could acquire on this subject. It's a pity for many voiceless Iranians to lose him on Wikipedia, and I hope you will understand what I mean. User:Xayyam (talk) 1:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear Rrburke, apology accepted, and thank you for the instruction on the User Talk page that saved me. I think it is time to be frank, though personal information is neither wise nor welcome in this kind of enterprise. As a matter of fact, I have affiliations with Iran, but I am not in Iran. I know Parchizadeh mostly through his work, but I have no access to the material on him in Iran. If I had them, I would have published them in the first place instead of trying to go all the way to make another account and then introduce them through that account; which brings us to Xayyam. Dear Xayyam, Ok, I will not go on strike! But since it was the extent of my reach from where I am, please you go ahead with your good work, and I will also do my share by contributing whatever I find. This is the benefit of corporate activities!Timelesstune (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will. I remember I could find his books published in Iran on the net, but it is really strange - or perhaps not - that his web page on his publisher's website in Iran has recently disappeared! However, I have found two important Iranian links on him: Tehran University report on his Xayyam Project and the information on the Iranian Comprehensive Portal of Human Sciences:
  • Tehran University Report on Xayyam Project
  • The Comprehensive Portal of Human Sciences

By the way, there are videos of him conducting conferences at Tehran University (which might have been uploaded by himself, since the account's name on YouTube is rezaparchizadeh; or maybe not) a few of whom I personally attended. The videos belong to Tehran University Archive, and it is quite obvious from the manner of photography that they are formal takings. Just search for videos under his name on Google. Xayyam (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Xayyam, with all due respect, I have moved some of your important edits with regard to Parchizadeh to this page, since they seem to contain personal information whose exposition to everybody on the net might prove ill-advised. I hope you will agree with me. These are the edits:

* See the links below for the pictures of the material by or about Parchizadeh, extracted from Tehran University Archive, that was never published:

Timelesstune (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a new user, and I have just created this account to join this debate and clarify a few points, because I care. Parchizadeh could be regarded as famous in some respects, but we must first define what we mean by fame. He was one of those many student activists who because of their independent-mindedness and individual stance were not usually named, despite their visible presence on the political stage during those years, in the archives and petitions of the politically-oriented organizations such as the Office for Consolidating Unity and the like. So he, like many others, was ostracized for his independence by the official critics of the Islamic Republic. Later, the same policy was employed toward him by the authorities of Tehran University who were torn between appreciating him for his scholarly achievements and denouncing him for his critical stance. Especially with regard to this part of his career, it is interesting that the Iranian web pages that contained his name or any information on him are one by one disappearing. Xayyam mentioned about his web page on his Iranian publisher’s website. I have another piece of news: that Hawzah.net link which used to rank his Xayyam among the top scholarly projects in Iran is not useful any longer, because he has been deleted. Now all this does not necessarily establish Parchizadeh’s fame, but I think it clarifies to some extent the fact that in Iran things could be much more complicated than they might seem from abroad, and that he, for his independence from all the bunch of the political manipulators and his sincere devotion to freedom-fighting during all these years, is appreciated by many people who don’t have – or cannot have – an official say on his or any other similar individual’s fame. After all, we must not forget that Wikipedia first and foremost is meant to be a forum of democracy, and a conveyor of the vox populi. Mythbreak (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)— Mythbreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment "Wikipedia first and foremost is meant to be a forum of democracy, and a conveyor of the vox populi." No, it isn't. It's an encyclopaedia. It happens to be edited by 'the people', but it is not a forum of democracy, or of anything else either. It is a collection of information, and that information must be referenced to reliable sources - see WP:RS. To those who are new users: Arguments made with reference to Wikipedia's policies and procedures will be taken into account by the admin who closes this discussion. It is not a head count, and standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions are irrelevant. If many new accounts appear, a sockpuppet investigation may result, and those found to be using multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. Personally, I think there may be notability in this subject - but the rules for referencing must be followed - especially in the case of a controversial living person. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
Agree with Peridon. Moreover, this deletion discussion has become cluttered with material not directly related its sole purpose: to determine whether the article Reza Parchizadeh is to be kept or deleted. It is not a forum to discuss competing definitions of fame or even the merits of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines already exist and have proved quite durable and serviceable. The issue is how they ought to be applied to the question of whether to keep or delete this article. Any material not directly addressing this question ought for clarity's sake to kept out of this discussion. Discussions about improving the article and suggestions for sources belong at Talk:Reza Parchizadeh, not here.
The principal task for this particular discussion is to measure the subject of this article against accepted standards of notability. In short, if the topic has been subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, it may merit a standalone article. If it has not been, it doesn't. The reason such sources (whether online or on paper is no matter) are not available is not relevant.
Occasionally, participating in Wikipedia requires one to consider complex questions. This is not one. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a new link:
Thankless Toil: My Old Poems Revisited at Morebooks
Timelesstune (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is only right when Peridon admits that the subject is "a controversial living person", and that "there may be notability in this subject". What I have personally tried to do since my joining the discussions on this article has been nothing but to prove the veracity of these points, but what I get is threats of blocking instead. True that there is personal interest in it, but is there not evidence as well? Xayyam (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:RS. Apart from the banning lists, everything given as a reference fails this policy. Threats of blocking ought to worry you only if you are running multiple accounts. If not, it doesn't apply to you. Get this straight - I'm trying to help you. So is Rrburke. There must be some coverage in Iranian communities outside Iran - but not blogs, etc. Read the policy and then see what you can find. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am ready to be blocked, but before that, there is a point to be mentioned here: when I use the usual Google motor to search for the name "Reza Parchizadeh", I get a total of 1360 links on him in English; and when I search for him in Farsi, I get 156000 results - which might or might not contain important material; but when I use the categorical Google links provided in this page I can find nothing on him. Is it because the name and its associations haven't been tagged? Anyway, I have also found an important link in Farsi at the Database for Specialist Periodicals:
The List of Articles by Reza Parchizadeh
Mythbreak (talk) 24:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you have to help me in a threatening tone, as if Jehovah wants to instruct Moses?! Anyway, should I be looking for news items? Because in my opinion the links provided in this page and the main article could adequately attest to the status of the subject as a prolific writer. And there is as well this problem: he got out of Iran just recently, and, given this fact, direct news of him outside of Iran would prove hard to come by. I will try nevertheless. Xayyam (talk) 24:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is asking you to read policies threatening? (Don't answer that...) Please point out where I have threatened you. I made a point I very often do at Articles for Deletion about the use of multiple accounts. As I said, if you aren't doing it, it doesn't apply. If you are doing it, stop it and stick to one account. We sometimes get flooded with single purpose accounts who all say the same thing. It doesn't work, and just makes the discussion harder to follow. By the way, that is the first time I've been compared to Jehovah. I'm more likely to be threatened with his wrath by people who seem to think they know what he is thinking. Peridon (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not a head count, and standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions are irrelevant. If many new accounts appear, a sockpuppet investigation may result, and those found to be using multiple accounts may be blocked from editing." Well, I am a new account holder, and I used standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions. The other new guy may choose to speak for himself since what you say applies to him as well to a great extent, but on my part, did I ever pretend that I was not interested in the subject? Anyway, what's the point of creating a collective and open-to-all enterprise and then trying to keep an exhausting hold on it when you know people would inevitably try to further their personal ends through that, and that they would tell lies about that? And, people could sound Godly, especially when they are most unaware of it. By the way, as -- Rrburke stated just a few paragraphs above, I think "this deletion discussion has [again] become cluttered with material not directly related to its sole purpose: to determine whether the article Reza Parchizadeh is to be kept or deleted!"Xayyam (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
As the issue is not his productivity but whether he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, how prolific he might be is wholly irrelevant. Here are a few links that will help you understand what standards a subject like this is measured against in judging notability:
May I also ask you to clarify whether Timelesstune, Xayyam and Mythbreak are indeed three distinct people? If not, you may be unaware that Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of multiple accounts for most purposes. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for clarification. Please be aware that the question can be answered with a high degree of confidence by a process known as Checkuser (please see Wikipedia:CheckUser)
Finally, could you confirm that none of you has a close connection to the subject of this article? I ask this because Timelesstune and Xayyam have each uploaded media files to Wikimedia Commons that appear to belong to Mr. Parchizadeh himself, and you have licensed these files as your own work, claiming in your license tags to be their copyright-holder. If you do have a close connection to the subject, you are considered to have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, if you do have such a conflict you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles related to your conflict, and from participating in a deletion discussion such as this one. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer -- Rrburke's first question, I am myself as much as I am aware of it. To answer the second question, I don't think if someone doesn't know Parchizadeh, he/she would be ready to go through all the cyber-work in order to prove he is famous just to keep him on Wikipedia. I know him, and I have seen him, but I don't think he knows me. Nevertheless, I admire both his personality and his work. Now I'd better stick to finding more evidence while the debate is going on so hotly! There is an important link. Parchizadeh has a personal page on the famous poetry website PoemHunter.com. I don't know why the others hadn't found it before?
Mythbreak (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am me, and what I have uploaded is public ___domain which you can find on Parchizadeh’s Facebook account. I’m not certain, but I think the pictures on Facebook, especially when they are open to everybody and ask for no permission, could be regarded as public ___domain. After all, they are the pictures of books or public events. By the way, I tried to delete a more personal picture and some information when I understood they might be improper to be put on Wikipedia. Someone had already tried to delete them, and I guess it might have been Parchizadeh himself or somebody close to him. However, I have had no complaints so far, and the history of edits shows that. About the material Xayyam uploaded, I thought some of them were again of a more personal nature that might endanger some people in Iran, so as the creator of the page I took the liberty of removing them from the article, but since they were important documents that, thanks to Xayyam, could help strengthening the article's status, I kept them on the debate page. Excepting this, I have no conflict of interest with him. Timelesstune (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I am myself, I think outside the world of the Internet we three might somehow know one another, though I'm not sure. About the files I uploaded, some of them such as the information on conferences are quite free to access. Some of them, however, are not. I will try to explain how I acquired them without exposing too much dangerous information (and now I think Timelesstune was right to remove them). It is a tradition at Tehran University that they keep a copy of every single page they give out, for archival purposes. This was the way I acquired those references (I hope you wouldn’t want to ask about who I am and how I did it!). It was with regard to this organizational side of these papers that I uploaded them as public ___domain, and if they will help keeping Parchizadeh on Wikipedia, the effort has been worthwhile. Please don’t tell me that I should have obtained a license from the authorities to consult those documents, for they are the very people who want to keep them secret in the first place! Now I don’t want to start all over again, but I have been trying to tell you about the situation in Iran. Xayyam (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Implied approval is inadequate. Unless and until the copyright-holder grants explicit permission to publish these images under a free license, they are considered copyright violations. The process for granting permission is set out at Commons:OTRS. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2011 (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/Reza_Parchizadeh&oldid=1078963969"