Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi


 * 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. per cunard I have discarded the non-policy based keep arguments that leaves the contention that the sourcing here is inadequate for inclusion. I will undelete this if anyone can show me two decent reliable secondary sources. Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very few in-line notations, a lot of un-sourced material. Beeshoney (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established. --John (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a person is notable doesn't mean the article must be kept - they need references. I find it surprising that John seems to ignore this fact considering he is an Administrator. I say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Nominator does not contest notability, which appears evident, or sufficiency of existing sources, and provides no other rationale for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. With respect, I would state that notability is established. While there is no deadline on providing references in articles, BLPs require at least one reference. This article contains one reference. Article meets criteria for inclusion. Lack of inline references is not a deletion criteria. Cindamuse (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article has no references: She contributes to the National Review, so the source is NOT independent from the subject.Farhikht (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. She is an editor of a unique ex-pat Iranian news source. The authorship of the news source is otherwise relatively undocumented, so it is good to have an article on the editor to stand as a reference. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know this? The only source of the article says that she is "a native of Iran who writes frequently about events in that country".Farhikht (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, a simple Google search shows good quality hits. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, a Google search in Persian shows only 9 hits. The article has no references and as I searched in English there is no reliable sources.Farhikht (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete notability is nowhere near established. The GNews hits in English consist of articles she wrote or articles where she is quoted briefly talking about a subject which is not herself. These do not contribute to notability. The hits in Persian like are of a similar nature --- not about her. Nor do I see that Iran Press News (of which she is the English-language editor) is a particularly notable news agency. LA has quite a few Persian newspapers. There's a reason they call it Tehrangeles. A few mainstream newspapers occasionally quote their reports. No one writes about them. cab (call) 09:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. To reply to you and Farhikht, she is notable because Planet-Iran.com is an interesting artifact, under the heading of Blogging in Iran. There aren't that many news-blogs in English about Iran and fewer still that print the kind of incendiary stories that she writes.  To say that it has a point of view is an understatement.  How does she finance it, what are her politics?  Either you delete an article like Blogging in Iran and skip the subject altogether, or you keep the topic and you supply reliable information about the blogs, including financing and point of view and authorship.  You can't do that if you go around deleting articles about the authors.  Erxnmedia (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that blogging in Iran is a notable topic does not make every blogger who gets quoted by the mainstream media suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is simply not how WP:BIO works. This is like saying every med student, general practitioner, and pharmacy worker in America is notable because health care in the United States is such a highly contested topic. The idea that she should be included simply because she blogs in English is extremely Anglocentric. If someone has not earned reliable, third-party, in-depth coverage for what they do, it does not matter what language they do it in. cab (call) 09:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ali Baba, I am commenting on articles in English Wikipedia, so you'll have to forgive the anglocentricity. There may be hundreds of similar news service/blogs in Farsi, but I don't know Farsi or Farsi Wikipedia so I won't comment on them.  The blog of the noted author appears to be a news service.  However, all of the articles are biased one-way.  The US, Iran and Israel are presently on a war footing.  The language of discourse between these three parties is primarily English.   The language of influence for public opinion in the US is English.  The noted author's blog/news service has high production values (daily or hourly publication frequency with new stories and appealing graphics).  Therefore it is probably expensive.  It is certainly intended to produce negative perceptions of the Iranian Government in English-speaking readers.  It is reasonable to ask whether this production is authored by someone who is (a) purely independent, self-financing and motivated by personal ex-patriate feelings, or is (b) financed by one or another organization or group of people with a particular point of view, or (c), in the extreme, to wonder if the author herself does not exist and is a fictional entity, with the blog/news service being the production of an organization with a point of view.  As an English-speaker whose opinions are easily swayed by appealing graphics and lurid stories, these questions come to mind as I seek to place faith in the source and the reporting in the blog/news service.  I look to Wikipedia to tell me more.  To that extent, I am happy that some information exists in article form on the author of this particular anglocentric blog/news service, and hence I vote Keep.  Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Notability of the person is fine but this article needs improvement. It needs to provide sources on the page so there is no question...Silent Bob (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Notability is barely sufficient as shown, but sources are necessary if we're going to be making all these assertions in a BLP. Let's err on the side of caution and give some time for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromancer (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs more info. KianTC 06:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The article contains one reference which provides trivial coverage about the subject. It mentions her twice: "Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a native of Iran who writes frequently about events in that country, estimates that ..." and "Zand-Bonazzi calls Bush’s rhetoric “excellent” and says that “as an individual, he’s gotten it.” This is unacceptable sourcing for a biography of a living person in that it verifies nothing in the Wikipedia article, save for the fact that Zand-Bonazzi was quoted in National Review. A Google News Archive search returns either passing mentions or articles that Zand-Bonazzi herself has written. There is virtually no significant coverage about her. asserts that notability is established but does not explain why.  asserts that there are sources that establish notability but has not provided any. 's argument is not based on the notability guidelines and ignores the policy Verifiability. 's argument violates WP:GOOGLEHITS in that s/he has not pointed to specific sources that establish notability.  asserts that the subject is notable but then says that someone "needs to provide sources on the page". I have not been able to find sources, so I find this argument to be unpersuasive.  writes that "sources are necessary if we're going to be making all these assertions in a BLP", but s/he has not provided any to justify supporting retention.  writes that the article "needs more info", and I do not see how that is a policy-based reason for keeping the article. Because the subject of this article has not received the necessary coverage in reliable sources to pass Verifiability or Biographies of living persons, and because no sources have been provided to demonstrate that the subject passes Notability and Notability (people), this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (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.