Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Revolution Document Center


 * 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. The nominator himself has stated that this article passes the General Notability Guideline; the only concern is that it is not currently up to the standards made requisite by the Verifiability policy. The key thing here is that an article's retention falls under WP:GNG. While WP:V is a "policy", that does not mean that it holds some form of authority over all guidelines. (The usage of the term policy is to denote that it is a less bendable rule than a guideline.)

As such, this article's subject is found to be notable. Any issues regarding its current state or content can, and should, be discussed at the article's talk page. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Revolution Document Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of the 3,583 articles created by machine translation scripts using the content translation tool prior to July 2016. There was a community discussion in which it was decided (1) to disable the tool on en.wiki and (2) to pass a new, temporary criterion for speedy deletion at WP:CSD, to enable the removal of these articles. The community accepted that many of these articles are fixable and properly-translated versions of them do belong on the encyclopaedia; but the community felt that machine translations are not reliable. Copyedited fixups of machine translations are also unreliable unless the person who has done the copyediting has dual fluency in the source language as well as English and so can confirm that the script has preserved the original meaning in the source language. Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, and my prod was unwisely removed with the accurate, but irrelevant, statement that the content "looks to be notable". The concern of course has nothing to do with notability. It's that it isn't verifiable: we don't know that the script has translated the material accurately because nobody with dual fluency has checked it. The effort involved in finding someone with dual fluency in English and Farsi and persuading them to check is utterly disproportionate when these articles were created by scripts, and I'd like to finish this job at some point and I'm hoping to retire in 20 years. So I need the extraordinary measures the community has authorised to be enforced. Help me AfD, you're my only hope! — S Marshall T/C 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete A cursory search in Google (both English and Farsi) only shows WP:ROUTINE coverage and mostly mentions where source material stored in the Center was cited elsewhere. There isn't coverage about the Center. Further, the fa-wiki article where I would expect to see development is also similarly unsourced and short. There's no claim for notability (GNG or NCORP) so it ought to be deleted. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be a major archive in its own country. The issue is not whether or not it's a good article but whether or not it's a notable topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks for such a long explanation on the reasoning behind the nomination. However, there's no reason to delete such a notable topic. Instead, I would ask the creator to complete the article using sources such as (, and ). More Persian sources can be found on this. This center is referred to by some other reliable sources on other occasions (like this). --  M h hossein   talk 13:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- However little I may like the present Iranian regime, this is clearly a notable archive repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm the article creator. The topic is notable by the sources supporting this. This article is not created by "machine translation scripts using the content translation tool." I will make some more edits and will ask the GOCE to copy edit it. --Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found are very credible. This is a notable and major archive of the Iranian Revolution - can you imagine an American archive being deleted in the same circumstances? AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment: I wrote in my nomination statement The concern of course has nothing to do with notability. It's that it isn't verifiable: we don't know that the script has translated the material accurately because nobody with dual fluency has checked it. This debate is full of "keep" !votes that don't address the reason for deletion.  The article creator says above that This article is not created by "machine translation scripts using the content translation tool, which I understand means that his position is that sentences like The first director of the IRDC was Seyed Hamid Rohani. Islamic Revolution Documents Center during its activity has been collect close to one million and seven hundred thousand pages of written documents, sixty thousand photographs, two hundred thousand negatives, twenty-three thousand hours of audio and fifteen thousand hours of video were written by a human.  I rather suspect this means it was written by a human who isn't fluent in English, which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that it's been accurately translated.— S Marshall  T/C 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is AfD, not cleanup! Poor articles can still be valid articles as far as their topic is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the topic meets the notability guideline. The content doesn't meet the verifiability policy because nobody with dual fluency has ever checked it.  See?— S Marshall  T/C 17:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand what the nominator's concerns are. The article requires a good cleanup. Some editor will have to put in the effort. Nevertheless, this is a significant (perhaps the most significant) archive in Iran with respect to the revolution's historic records. There's much sense in keeping the article than deleting it. The two sources I understand above have written in basic detail about the institution. I hope more can be found. Lourdes  06:22, 8 February 2017 (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.