Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poor notability and lack of reliable sources. There article is more like an advertisement for the book than an encyclopediac article. There is nothing which can make the book notable ● Mehran Debate● 07:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Multiple editors have worked on this article over time and it does have basic sources. And since it does not read like a typical "blurb", I see no reason to delete it at this time. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The references are dependent or promotional and they are not reliable. The article is just introducing the book and there is no sign of notability in it. ● Mehran Debate● 14:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 WP:BKCRIT #1 multiple reviews. -- Green  C  14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain more why is it notable? FYI we are talking about a book not an author and there is nothing related to the criterion you showed. ● Mehran Debate● 14:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I got author and book confused. I believe it is notable due to passing WP:GNG & WP:BKCRIT #1 multiple reviews. -- Green  C  14:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which review? The guideline is "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". May I ask you to show me such sources? ● Mehran Debate● 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They are in the article:
 * M.A.Orthofer (21 April 2011). "A City Under Siege". complete review. Retrieved June 3, 2014.
 * Hamid Eshani. "A City under Siege". Review of Middle East Studies (Winter 2011, Vol. 45 Issue 2). Retrieved March 27, 2015.
 * Need more? I'm pretty good at searching. (Although the BKCRIT only requires two.) There's a third one there, but since it's in Farsi I can't comment on the quality, it looks independent (ketabnews.com) and discusses the book based on Google Translate. -- Green  C  16:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the guidelines (not "rules") for notability are in place to establish the basis for discussion and consensus. Middle Eastern literature in English is an underrepresented area and works from the Middle East (certain Ex-pat authors excepted) do not receive the same attention in reviews as Western authors, so notability is difficult to assess. That said, I still see no reason to delete, and the tone of this conversation feels a little "tense"--which is another reason I would argue to let it stay for now. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "tense" is, but tone of a conversation never is a reason for keeping an article. Wikipedia has guidelines and comments here have to be referred to these guideline. The user claimed that there are reviews for this book to make it notable, and I ask again, where are these reviews? ● Mehran Debate● 20:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - And I repeat, the guidelines (again they are not "rules" or "laws") are derived from consensus and common practice and following them exactly, or not, is also by consensus--in this case, voting and discussion, which is what we are doing now. HullIntegrity  \ talk← / 00:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With your argument we should keep all the non-notable articles in AfDs since notability guidelines is not a matter of discussion. Voting is not a acceptable process in the AfDs and you are not obliged to answer on behalf of the other users, so I ask for the third time from who claimed there are reviews for the book, could you please show me such reviews? ● Mehran Debate● 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per all of User:HullIntegrity's comments above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is not notable and lacks reliable sources. Should be deleted without hesitation. Mbcap (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The author's earlier book, Chess with the Doomsday Machine, has been a common reading on several notable US campuses and is being used in other college courses. So, that book seems notable beyond discussion as does, therefore, the author. As to this book -- and I will further clarify -- it is extremely difficult, in general and in the current political climate, for translations of books from the Middle East to be reviewed at all, by anyone who writes in English. That unfortunate circumstance creates a special case where the systemic bias (external to Wikipedia) should be acknowledged, in my humble opinion, by the editors on Wikipedia. Almost no translated books from the Middle East that are politically contentious will be reviewed by any New York Times reviewer who wants to keep a job. "Notable by absence" is what underrepresented areas are all about (and ergo edit-a-thons). HullIntegrity  \ talk / 01:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no relationship between Chess with the Doomsday Machine and A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War notability. If there is no review, there would be no notability then. Wikipedia has its own policies and does not obey the users' opinions. ● Mehran Debate● 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually . . . your statement is, I believe, incorrect. Wikipedia has no editing "policies" that apply here. I assist with new user training almost every week, and "collective decisions" over "guidelines" is exactly what is included in the training. So saying "we have to follow the policies" just makes no sense in this case. I cannot speak for Wikipedia in other languages as I only work with Spanish very lightly, but their guidelines seem very similar. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 12:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep:-Page creator- The subject is notable for sure. All of the sources are reliable and the book is reviewed by complete review. This source exists in the article and I wonder how the nominator has not found it out. By the way, the book won the Writing Forge Literary Award in UK a while ago. . Mhhossein (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator has opened 4 AfDs. They are all article created by User:Mhhossein. The nom has voiced intention to open more AfDs for articles created by Mhhossein - they will be added to this list if so.
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War
 * Articles for deletion/That Which That Orphan Saw
 * Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi
 * -- Green C  04:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom Ladsgroupoverleg 11:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Related ANI discussion that involves this AfD. -- Green  C  15:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep discusses the book itself,and the reception, just like it should. There seems to be good sources for awards. (the book would seem aligned with the nationalist view of the war, but that is no reason not to have an article. WP is neutral on such matters.)  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, specifically '1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.'  The relevant article refs are M.A.Orthofer of complete review  and Hamid Eshani of Middle East Studies Association of North America  The other refs may be okay for rounding out the article (iran review ref also states that the book was the basis for an award winning film) I have also found this  which is an academic paper using two of the books stories for study.Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.