Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari (2nd nomination)


 * 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 (discounting obvious single-purpose accounts) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Kourosh Ziabari
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References do not establish notability of subject. Just a collection of this individual's largely fringe viewpoints. A 2005 Afd Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari on the subject had consensus to delete. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC) -
 * Keep. There's no convincing reason for the deletion of the article. The notability of the subject is easily distinguishable and the fact that the article includes the subject's viewpoints is not something unprecedented. It's a common practice in the majority of Wikipedia's biographical articles that the viewpoints of the subject, whether a journalist, academician or author are included. --ZahraKazemi (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This another notable contributor to siignifiant pro-palestine anti-Israel press outlets such as PressTV which reflects the official policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Veterans Today which is another "fringe" outlet identified by both ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center as an important and dangerous anti-semitic conspiracy outlet. The article suffers from a bias in favor of the author's viewpoints which are very close to those of the Iranian government which has many critics. Many of these articles appear to be proposed for deletion to make it difficult to research who these people are really speaking for, and Plot Spoiler has also proposed to delete Mark Dankof who also writes for Iran's PressTV. Redhanker (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The author is both articulate and resourceful and highly accurate in his reporting.  We need more exchange of information and communication with Iran, not less.  In this time of stress between nations, his contributions are especially valuable. 24.177.119.16 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)James H. Fetzer — 24.177.119.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Kourosh Ziabari is a first-rate journalist and internationally respected reporter in global news media. Sincerely, Mark Dankof  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramf (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)  — Kramf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just to take a tally now. Three of the "keep" votes appear to come from Veterans Today contributors. "ZahraKazemi", who appears to be "Kourosh Ziabari" or someone editing on his behalf. It appears this individual then prodded James H. Fetzer and Mark Dankof to contribute (who until this date have not contributed to Wikipedia). I suggest their votes be discounted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Making unsubstantiated claims and bringing no evidence to demonstrate them is not too difficult. ZahraKazemi (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm agree with the nominator that the article would include a kind of fringe viewpoints which can't bring the article notability. I didn't find any independent RS that explains the fact to verify the notability. I also think there are some SP existed in this AfD. ● Mehran Debate● 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Kourosh Ziabari is an award winning journalist who published in numerous internationally recognized media. It may be that the person he interviews are by "some" considered as controversial while "others" consider them heroes for speaking out, they are under any circumstance "experts" in their fields. As a Palestinian and Arab I consider the removal request merely as one more example for to what lengths "some" will go to silence news and opinion which does not concur with the most prevalent and socially accepted "consensus reality" which is disseminated by media in traditional colonialist, neo-colonialist countries and and their allies. It is a sign of their lack of understanding of the very democracy and pluralism they claim to stand for that I have to respond to this removal request. Fahwad al-Khadoumi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahwad Khadoumi (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)  — Fahwad Khadoumi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. There's no doubt that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. The reasons presented for the removal of his page are superficial. Wikipedia should always maintain a certain degree of impartiality and objectivity so as to preserve its credibility. Mohammadttavakoli (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)) — Mohammadttavakoli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The one source that might potentially establish notability is the award he received, but that fails to establish enough context to be meaningful, plus the site the supporting article is hosted on has enough indiscriminate tabloid trash to be highly questionable. All of the other sources are either trivial, (staff-directory pages for sites he has contributed to) or opinion pieces he himself has written. This page needs sources about him, not by him.Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ideology forum. Banning someone from Wikipedia and removing his/her entry for simply maintaining certain viewpoints is not an acceptable behavior. The majority of those who call for the deletion of this entry do so because their political viewpoints are different from that of the subject; otherwise, they don't bring up convincing evidence to support their position. ZahraKazemi (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has many articles on people with a wide variety of viewpoints; this discussion is about Kourosh Ziabari's basic notability. Regardless of his views, sources fail to adequately establish that he warrants an article at all. This is not a discussion of whether or not he would be 'banned' from Wikipedia, that is a different issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Grayfell; you fail to demonstrate, by bringing up evidence and witnesses, that Kourosh Ziabari is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. On what basis do you propose such an argument? Kourosh Ziabari has been published and interviewed by the world's most renowned progressive media outlets (if you can come to terms with such media) and if what you say is true, then all the journalists who have pages on Wikipedia lack the basic notability which you talk of. ZahraKazemi (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Do you honestly believe that the Iranian regime's Press TV and Veterans Today with its anti-semitic conspiracy theories are "progressive" outlets? Far from it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Plot Spoiler, your concern is not the subject's notability. You have an ideological problem with the subject, and as I mentioned earlier, I think nobody agrees with you that Wikipedia is a place for ideological arguments and value judgments. If you have a problem with the "Iranian regime," I think you should solve it somewhere else, not by nominating for deletion the entry for someone whom you constantly fail to demonstrate is not notable and does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. ZahraKazemi (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Other neutral editors and I have demonstrated that the subject clearly fails the notability criteria. If you wish to keep ignoring Wikipedia policy, that's fine. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are a "neutral editor." And by accusing me of ignoring Wikipedia's policy, you cannot put a lid on your anti-Iran bias. So, it's easily conceivable that after this entry, you'll continue nominating the entries of those who support the "Iranian regime" and weave "anti-semitic" conspiracies. I have a suggestion for you. Nominate Gunter Grass's entry for deletion. He has recently composed some anti-semitic poems! By the way; where are your demonstrations? ZahraKazemi (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think his association with antisemitic web sites is the issue. Neither is his 'fringe' viewpoint. ZahraKazemi, if you really want to save this article, I challenge you to find reliable, non-primary sources establishing his notability. There are many journals and magazines that discuss journalists and journalism, so if he is as notable as you claim, you should be able to find something. The burden of proof is on you to establish that he is notable, not us to demonstrate that he isn't. Complaining about other editors isn't going to get you anywhere. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are now heading toward a logical, reason-based discussion. Why not? I'll cite references and evidences to establish that he is notable; references and sources which are abundantly accessible on the web and indicate the subject's notability in a clear-cut and unequivocal way. If the problem was really a lack of sufficient and strong references and sources, it could have been discussed in the article's talk page, not in its nomination for deletion page. So, once this arguments come to an end, I'll work on improving the article. ZahraKazemi (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Journalists are only notable if other people write about them, i.e., if secondary sources exist. I see nothing in the article or the links above that establish this.  Without these sources it is not possible to write a neutral article.  TFD (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of non-trivia coverage in reliable independent sources, which we require not only for our notability guideline but also to ensure that the article is compliant with WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability has not been demonstrated, reliable sources are absent, and the whole Viewpoint section is essentially original research derived by the main author of the page from the articles written by the subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2012 (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.