Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran and Red and black colonization


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Iran and Red and black colonization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. Yes this has been mentioned in books, but one or two lines in a book is not enough to warrant an article. As there are four editors who routinely team up whenever an Iran/Shia related article is brought to AFD I would like the closing admin to consider their age old arguments and the counter arguments on my part which I will just write here beforehand. These editors usually say "There are a lot of sources dude!". WP:LOTSOFSOURCES addresses this. This article is about a subject which has only trivial mentions, nothing more. Keep voters should show which source/s have enough material to write an encyclopedic article in a neutral tone. As per WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view". There is not enough material to even write a stub, let alone an article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete . The only good argument for keeping this article is expressed here: "Ayatollah I love you".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)  Keep.  Mhhossein proved notability.--  Toddy1 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article title seems to be also translated as "Iran and red and black imperialism" . - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, are they 1 or 2 lines really? I think the nominator payed no attention to my advice, suggesting him to make enough searches before making such awkward nominations. By the way, I did not check some of the Refs already used in the article and I suggest the article creator to add my list to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article should be kept because it clearly passes WP:GNG. The main logic behind this AFD, as the nominator says, is that "one or two lines in a book is not enough to warrant an article." So, let's see the sources;
 * 1) ) Three rather long paragraphs here (published by Yale University Press).
 * 2) ) A chapter of this book (by Simon and Schuster) is dedicated to the subject.
 * 3) ) A section of this book (published by SUNY Press).
 * 4) ) Some paragraphs of this book. (published by University Press of Florida)
 * 5) ) Almost two pages of this book (by Routledge).
 * 6) ) Some paragraphs of this book (published by Harvard University Press).
 * 7) ) Some page of this book (published by Harvard University Press).
 * Delete as the article makes little sense in its current form. As a native english speaker, it is so full of poor grammar that it is hard to know what it is actually saying. At the very least, it needs a dose of WP:TNT. As for its notability, having looked at the claim of "a chapter of the Simon and Schuster book" (link provided in the sources listed above) very little is about the newspaper article which is the subject of the Wikipedia article; it is about early activities of the revolution. As the nominator specifies, these are brief mentions. All of the important information here can be found in the Iranian Revolution article, where it belongs.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your points. At least the first 4 pages of the chapter 7 in "Days of God: The Revolution in Iran and Its Consequences" are dedicated to the article and the reactions toward it. Is it very little? Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Mhhossein. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Mhhossein and also added new sources.Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2016 (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.