Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Zolani


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Kourosh Zolani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

After an extensive search for reliable sources, I found none. The awards and recognitions could not be verified and do not strike me as notable anyway (see the article before I got my paws on it. I can find no coverage in Google News of this person, just this press release. The albums haven't charted, etc. No notability, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree. I don't think that the article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it has no third party references, just a link to the persons own biography. On further inspection, I also noticed that the paragraph user Thomasshane had inserted into this revision of the article, is a copy from this website - one of the two first party references. Even subsequent edits to the article made by this user were almost identical to the information on this website. Furthermore, as user Drmies has said, it seems that Google brings up few, if any, hits about this person. In conclusion, I support the deletion of this article. I do hope not to upset user Thomasshane, as his edits do seem to have been made in good faith (although they may be considered as advertising, especially since they were copied from a first party website), but the article just isn't significant enough.Beeshoney (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC) One more thing. The only image used in this article that was added on the 6th of August, is going to be deleted on the 13th of August because of insufficient copyright information. Beeshoney (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let me clear some facts here. First of all, the image link provided by user Drmies in the find sources box is a filtered link. This is what you get when search “Kourosh Zolani” in google image. I am not saying that he did it intentionally to misinterpret the information but the question remains why the image link suggested by this user is a filtered link. Secondly, in revision (20:09, 10 August 2010) user Drmies after reverting my edit to the article, commented there and I quote “he was a finalist, not a winner in 2003 …”. The article has never indicated that Kourosh Zolani was the winner in 2003 USA songwriting competition. Indeed the article had mentioned HE WAS THE FINALIST there. Also, he wrote “competition seems non-notable as well. However, the songwriting competition is the world's leading international songwriting event according to the organization’s website. Again, I am not saying that he did it intentionally but the question remains why misinformation is provided here. In another example, user Drmies has questioned even the reliability of some of the sources that have had long history and reputation in USA. In this version he deleted the artist’s award as the best solo instrumental album in JPF competition in 2004. Later on the discussion he commented: “that is not a reliable source, and if it were, it's minor.” Please note that, JPF is the largest independent music award in the world. For those, who said they did “extensive search” and found nothing, I have a question: how do you search? Do you intentionally filter the search to find nothing? Thomasshane (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Dear Drmies and Beeshoney My friend Thomas brought this discussion to my attention. We are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who are trying to introduce notable artists and scientists from our community in Wikipedia to increase peace and understanding among our cultures. I am really sorry that our attempts causes problem for Kourosh Zolani's page. I understand my friends made some mistakes editing his page but we did not intend to cause any harm. Kourosh Zolani is a respected well-known artist in our community. He is an independent artist and his music is not commercialized but it is well received by local radios and TVs. I heard his interviews on KPFK Global Village show and recently with the Jon Lewis show. Kourosh has done a lot of work to reach where he is now and I strongly believe he deserves to be presented in wikipedia. If I may, I would like to invite you to just watch his new music video on youtube and get a sense of who he is. Our group policy is to select artists who at least have google hits higher than 30,000 in google search engine to introduce them on wikipedia. If you search "Kourosh Zolani" in google, he has above 70,000 hits. Please give us a chance to correct what we did wrong. I will work on his page personally and make sure to include reliable sources. I sincerely apologize for all the trouble we caused. In conclusion, I strongly suggest to keep this article. Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. The number of Google hits is not relevant. What matters is reliable sources. Find those and this discussion can be closed very quickly. This isn't about doing anything wrong and there is no need to apologize. BTW, "Drmies" gets almost 5,300 hits in Google--I got some more work to do. :) Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the number of the hits in google is not relevant, why did you bring it up at the first place? I am referring to the note above: "Furthermore, as user Drmies has said, it seems that Google brings up few, if any, hits about this person." I really try to stay positive and assume that you have good intentions but I started to feel that you are taking this matter personally and misrepresenting the information that is available in the Internet. I expected more from the senior editors of WP. Sozlati (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete . With all due respect, WP is not a webhost to promote local community members. The artists that you hope to include, may be notable on a community or local level, but may be fall short of the required criteria to establish notability here. WP relies on secondary and third party sources to establish notability. The only sources that I find to support inclusion are those found on the subject's Internet website, which are not considered reliable. If additional sources can be found to support notability, I would opt to keep the article. Until then, I recommend deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, this article now appropriately indicates notability, supported by reliable sources. Cindamuse (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Under Ignore All Rules. Decently done bio, no harm in keeping, info lost in deleting. Carrite (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The harm lies in its non-compliance with WP:BLP. The article does not have a single reliable source. In the end, the only source that can verify the claims in the article is the subject's website. Ignoring that makes a mockery of the project. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. You are saying the article does not have a single reliable source which is not true. Please read the note below by Thomasshane. He provided the link to a reliable source before your new post. Here is the link again to one of Kourosh Zolani's awards . His name is mentioned in the 7th category from the bottom of the list. Sozlati (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Read WP:RS: that is not a reliable source, and if it were, it's minor. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I made some bad edits on Kourosh Zolani's page which I apologized before and I do so again. However, I do not understand why you should question the integrity and nobility of the artist and his recognitions. I found this third party link to the one of Kourosh Zolani's awards. His name is mentioned in the 7th category from the bottom of the list. Here is the link to the organization's website . This award was mentioned in his page before it was removed: Best Solo Instrumental Album of the Year – Peaceful Planet, (selected among 10,000 CDs spanning 85 countries), Just Plain Folks International Contest, 2004. I vote to keep this article. It has the capacity to become an informative page on the WP. Thomasshane (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Please do not remove deletion sorting notices. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment the author should provide reliable sources independent from artist, verify if 2 albums are released via a well known records company with wiki page. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hello again. When I said: "as user Drmies has said, it seems that Google brings up few, if any, hits about this person", I mean third party and reliable references. This link you've mentioned does not support any of the information you want to insert into the article. Most of the information you want to insert into the article (as I mentioned above) is a copy from the persons own biography. If you are part Iranian, have you perhaps thought about creating the article on the Iranian Wikipedia? There's a whole list of different language Wikipedia's here. Once again, please do not be offended about this, but the person certainly doesn't seem to be notable enough to be included on the English Wikipedia. I still support the deletion of this article. Beeshoney (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion is turning to a cultural differences debate. Who is a notable artist? We consider an artist notable judging by his work not by trivia. If an artist is not a mega artist and has not been featured all over the tabloid, then he is not good enough to be presented on WP? Kourosh Zolani is a well-respected composer and inventor. He has given a new life to an ancient instrument from 699BCE and modified it to a completely new modern instrument. I still highly recommend keeping this article; it adds more to the body of knowledge stored in WP. Sozlati (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Hello again. The link that I mentioned does support one of the Kourosh Zolani’s awards and it is from the award organization’s website not his website. Thomas provided this link to establish that Kourosh Zolani's awards are authentic because Drmies put the page for “deletion discussion” when ThomasShane was working on the awards section (please review the page history). Thomasshane stopped working on the biography, when he learned that he was not doing good edits. The biography was the same as it is now and he was not trying to change that anymore. He was working on the award section when the page went up for the discussion. As I mentioned before our purpose is to introduce notable Iranian-American artists and scientists in English WP because English is one of the most spoken/known languages in the world. Our hope is to communicate and educate people that beyond fear and uncurtaining that exist in the realm of politics, when it comes to the people, we are very much the same, accomplished artists, scientists, teachers….


 * Comment. What establishes notability for our purposes is Notability, specifically Notability (music). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please read this (Biographies of Living Persons), this (Notability), this (Verifiability) and this (No original research). Please be assured that there is no "cultural differences debate" going on here. However, I would like to bring up your statement: We consider an artist notable judging by his work not by trivia." I am specifically pointing to the We bit. Whether the article conforms to the Wikipedia guidelines I have just mention will determine if it stays, not what you think. Also, I quote this sentence from the No Original Research guideline: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." I will not be commenting again in this discussion if it involves me repeating what I have just said. Beeshoney (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thank you for directing me to these sources in WP. I read them all and I tried to edit the article based on their instructions. I added several reliable sources to Kourosh Zolani article. Three of the publications are in Farsi. Since Kourosh Zolani has modified an ancient Iranian instrument, it should understandably be approved by Iranian scholars. These sources are acceptable according to the WP guidelines on Verifiability: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. Also, the references that I added are third party reliable publications, so the article is not an original research. Plus, as instructed in biographies of living people, I removed all the links or references to the artists’ website in the article. I only mentioned the artist’s official website under the external links. In addition, according to the WP Notability guidelines for musicians, a musician should at least meet one of the criteria listed on the WP article to be considered notable.
 * Here are some of the criteria chosen from WP notability list that Kourosh Zolani meets:
 * 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Please see the reference section on Kourosh Zolani page which provides such sources.
 * 2. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Kourosh Zolani has been credited in several sources for modifying the Santour, an ancient instrument, and performing the new chromatic instrument in the complex orchestrations for the first time in the history of this instrument. Also, his work has been acknowledged by independent organizations such as California Traditional Music Society and Los Angeles County Arts Commission. (Please see Kourosh Zolani article, references and external links)
 * 3. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. As mentioned in the article and supported by the references, Kourosh Zolani is a pioneer in performing and composing with chromatic santour.
 * 4. Has won or placed in a major music competition. One of Kourosh’s albums was awarded the Best Solo Instrumental Album of the Year in the Just Plain Folks International Contest in 2004. This award according to the organization’s website is the world’s largest independent music awards.
 * 5. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Kourosh’ work has been broadcasted on many radio programs, and just recently (July 16, 2010 at 1:00pm PDT) he was featured on the Jon Lewis Show on 6PR 882 radio station, an Australian radio with worldwide broadcast through the Internet. Link to the interview.
 * Considering the above note, I would like to invite you to vote to keep this article. According to WP determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. Kourosh Zolani is an accomplished artist who deserves to be presented on WP. Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article as it currently stands needs work in order to bring it into conformance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In order to assist you as you move forward with editing future articles, I would like to suggest a review of WP:FOOTNOTES, WP:MOS, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP. Compliance with the policies presented in these areas will help you to possibly avoid future deletion discussions. It may also help you to review the article on how to discuss an AfD. There are a few more days for others to weigh in with their recommendations on this particular article. Either way, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you decide to stick around and add more to the encyclopedia in the future. In the meantime, I hope my ideas help somewhat. Cindamuse (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the process of discussing Articles for Deletion (AfD) often looks like a democratic vote, this is not in fact true. This discussion presents an opportunity to recommend action according to established policy. There could hypothetically be seven keeps and one delete. If the policy cited recommends to delete, the closer will follow that recommendation. Wikipedia is not concerned with "need" or whether or not a subject "deserves" to be included in the encyclopedia. Opinions have no bearing here. What matters is notability that is verified through reliable secondary and third-party sources, properly cited. In order to verify the Farsi sources provided, we need to have a translation. Can you provide this? According to policy, the translation can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. Inviting others to vote a particular way won't really help within this recommendation process. That said, I would like to be able to verify the content within the article as sourced through the Farsi references. If this information can be provided, I may be more inclined to recommend that this article be kept.

Also, thank you for welcoming me to WP, I am a new editor and started this project with good intention but sadly I do not feel welcome here. Over, the last few days, I followed all the rules and instructions in WP that I found myself or someone suggested me here in the discussion and the day after, new accusations about the integrity of our references or the notability of the artist emerge on the discussion. It seems to me this article is being treated with oversensitivity. I looked at so many articles in WP to learn from them and I found many articles about artists that have not provided half of the references that there is in this article and there are many links to their personal blog, websites, etc. Sozlati (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The articles in Farsi are long and it takes time to translate. However, if necessary I can scan them and include the pdf files to the footnote while we translate them. Thank you for pointing me the footnote, I will read the section and follow the instructions. There are only three Farsi references, other references in this article are verifiable and reliable sources in English.


 * Keep I just read the article and it's history and took a look on it's reference. also I did a quick search on internet myself. I think Kourosh Zolani's work is very notable and so important in music science. The composition of an ancient instrument from East with a complete set of modern instrument from West is a notable brilliant work. This is not a temporary notability. His work verified on The one of most official newspaper in Iran ,Irannewspaper which is issued by the government.(The link connect you to an article on this newspaper regarding to reference no 2) In addition, the last article has a strong structure and supported by very good and reliable references. It seems there is no more excuse to remove this article. So I strongly support to keep this article. thank you.mamali (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Mrjalali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  keep  I vote to keep this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.38.47.68 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 95.38.47.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep  I vote to keep this page. There is no reason to delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.172.73 (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 94.182.172.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  keep  I vote to keep this page …. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.39.188.78 (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 78.39.188.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  keep  I vote to keep this page, I now proclaim my readiness to support Koorosh Zolani, Please keep this page and don't damage your admired reputation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.5.201 (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 79.127.5.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  keep  I vote to keep this page …. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.143.34 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 217.219.143.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  keep  I vote to keep this page …. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.50.169 (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 94.182.50.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please be aware that ALL of the above IP addresses voting to keep the article have made no edits to Wikipedia except to this page. (I am starting to get a bit suspicious about this - Thomasshane has gone surprisingly quiet) Also, user "Mrjalali" has only made edits to the article being discussed for deletion, and also to Memoirs of Sangesar, which simply redirects to the article being discussed for deletion. I think that this article should also be deleted, as it has no in-line references. (I am probably going to put it up for speedy deletion as it is a bio) Just to some up, nearly ALL of the people voting to keep the article on this discussion page have made few other edits to Wikipedia. Beeshoney (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I believe we agreed that this discussion is about the article and not the editors. As I mentioned before (my note on 21:25, 10 August 2010) we are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who started this project to introduce Iranian-American scholars to English speaking people hoping to enhance peace and understanding among our cultures. And yes, we are new editors.  We said that ourselves several times, there is no need to mention it at the end of every comment. Every senior editor has been a new editor one day. I followed suggestions on the discussion along with WP guideline and edited Kourosh Zolani article over last few days. The article in current format meets the criteria WP criteria of notability for music (please see my comment on 02:03, 13 August 2010). Please evaluate the current article on its own, not based on the editors’ experience or its editing history. I think the comment “I am starting to get a bit suspicious about this - Thomasshane has gone surprisingly quiet” is not constructive.  Thomas apologized several times for his bad edits. In our team, we decided that only one person contribute to the edits and discussion about this article to avoid distraction from the main topic. Why is that suspicious! I have been respectful to all people who made comments in this discussion and thanked them for their advice. It is not right that you write about us like we are bunch of suspicious people with suspicious intentions. By the way, I don’t know where these IP supporters came from. We did not invite anyone to weigh in or to vote for the article and as you see this move does not even help us.Sozlati (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. All IP votes should be excluded from this AFD, its clear there is some form of rule breaking going on either its one person posting many times or this is being advertised somewhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. That is exactly what I've been thinking.Beeshoney (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: You are right it has been advertised but by Wikipedia itself. User cab put this deletion under Iran-related and Musician-related deletion discussions. What do you expect, you call a musician who people like unauthentic and they react. Please do not make fool of yourselves. Think about a comment before posting it. Here is what user cab posted:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thomasshane (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've just tagged three IPs as s. Everyone is allowed to comment here: IP editors may offer sound arguments for keeping or deleting the page. The IPs I tagged, however, appeared to regard this as a vote: that is quite mistaken. The decision to keep or delete the page will be taken based on the quality of arguments, not the number of "votes". Indeed, this is explicitly not a vote. TFOWR 10:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This would be harder for me to decide if it wasnt for all the cheating going on above. Sadly wikipedia depends on reliable sources to judge notability and at present they are clearly lacking. It is not very nice and i can see why it doesnt seem fair, but other actors, bands and musicians get their articles deleted or do not even get one at all. If some more 3rd party reliable sources are found ill change to keep. But the google search i did only came across the newswire press release mentioned by Drmies above about an agreement with "eileen koch" which does not have an article either. The fact this guy is in America and there is no reliable news sources to back up notability is very problematic, i could understand if this was someone in Iran, it would be harder for us to find western sources to judge notability and so there would be more justification for keeping without such sources but to be without coverage in western press about someone in the USA is a problem, there should atleast be some newspaper articles about the guy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * *Weak Keep - I am changing to keep, whilst the article needs more reliable sources still other editors appear to be willing to put some work into the article and some other sources have been found. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You called some of the above activities cheating. What do you call filtering the image search on Google provided by user Drmies in the find sources box on the top of this page? Here is the actual link. Here is the filtered link. Thomasshane (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like to invite you to review the discussion board and the edit history of the last few days. I do not understand what you are referring to as “all the cheating going on above”. I followed the WP guidelines and appreciated every single advice and applied it to the article where applicable. The article is in a better shape now and there are also third party resources in English. If you are referring to the IP supporters as cheating believe it or not this is an uncalled support. I don’t know how that started and it is even undermining my work of the last few days. Plus, this does not change the fact that the article must stand by itself and any support in discussion without sound reasoning will not help. Kourosh Zolani has been in the US for just a few years. He has worked with well-known musicians in the US, his work has been featured on different radio programs and he has won local and international awards. He is not a pop artist; he is an independent musician who is well-known among people who appreciate different types of music and has received one of the largest independent music awards in the world (please see the article and my note on 02:03, 13 August 2010). According to WP notability guidelines “determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity”. Not being featured by Western press doesn’t question the notability based on WP notability guidelines for musicians. Sozlati (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I've put the obvious vote-stacking by similar IP addresses above in a collapse box, and semi-protected the debate to prevent a recurrence of the same. ~ mazca  talk 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am suspicious about Thomasshane going quiet as it could suggest that one person is using multiple accounts (which is forbidden under most circumstances in Wikipedia - see sock puppetry). Also, I do not believe your comment "I don’t know where these IP supporters came from". It would be very unusual to get so many KEEP votes from IP addresses which are unrelated. The final decision about whether the article should be deleted will be made by an administrator in a few days. Beeshoney (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think some misinterpretations and miscommunications are going on here. With the new comment made by user Beeshoney, if I only had the feeling that it was getting more personal than fact checking, now I am confident that this is a personal attack. If making accusation is that easy, then I can make the argument that Beeshoney and Drmies are the same person with different accounts which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Drmies has been quiet as much as I have been for the last couple days. Thomasshane (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am glad that a WP administrator is making a decision and not someone who obviously has bias and personal preferences in this issue. If I wanted to bring in these IP supporters, I would not spend three days working on the article based on WP guidelines. It is not even reasonable, when the decision for keeping the article is not based on the number of votes. By the way, I will not discuss your cheap shot about sock puppetry. If WP administrators would ask, we can easily prove our identities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sozlati (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign)Sozlati (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as Its unclear if the albums are released through a knwon label, Iran newspaper cant pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please check other references in the article too. Iran newspaper is one reference; there are more references in Kourosh Zolani article now. However, this reference is verifiable too. Please see the WP variability article: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. Plus based on WP guidelines for establishing a musician notability, many different criteria can be considered. Only one of them is releasing albums through a known label. Kourosh Zolani meets several of those criteria. Please see my note on 02:03, 13 August 2010. Thank you. Sozlati (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. For your information Thomasshane, Drmies has not been quiet as you can see from the users contribution log here, whereas your contribution log made no edits from the 10th of August until now. And yes, an impartial Administrator who has not been involved in this discussion will make the final decision about whether to delete the article or not. However, I am not biased, as my reasons for the deletion of this article are clearly stated above and are within Wikipedia guidelines. Beeshoney (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes of course you are biased. Go through your comments in this discussion board. I am a new user, so what? The artist is not notable because you don't like me? Thomasshane (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I thought this page is just for discussing about the weaknesses and strengths of the AfD. I am really sorry to see Beeshoney,as an editor of WP, has forgotten commenting about new edited article and guiding and helping new editors to improve their article. Instead, s/he’s gone to personal attacks and judging people and accusing them to be beginner and advertising without any evidence (look at his above comments). First, I didn’t want to write about personalizing a discussion by a WP editor here, but, to keep it in the history of the discussion:


 * 1- Based on the WP’s rules and regulations, all people have the right to announce their ideas about an article or a subject and the number of their previous comments doesn’t have any effect on their comments’ quality. But Beeshoney insists that people with higher number of comments have priority on others. It seems that s/he is responsible to counting the number of each person’s comments! just take a look at her/his comment in edit history of this page and this help annoncment at end of page


 * 2- I’m sure that the administrator can easily see the date of my user ID initiation which is January 17th, 2006. Why should Thomasshane need to create several user names in WP to edit Kourosh Zolani’s page as Beeshoney said “it could suggest that one person is using multiple accounts”?! These users are not for same person and have not been created for short-term purposes. they are just new editors and this is the first experience of editing something on WP. Do you have any problem with this?


 * 3- Kourosh Zolani is a known musician in his field. He has many fans all around the world who visit his fan page and website every day. As his WP article’s link exists on his fan pages, it seems completely normal that some visitors come to the WP page to get more information about him and his works. Normally, when fans realize that his WP page is nominated for deletion they react to support him by voting to keep the page. Just a glance on the IPs shows that all these fans are not from a specific place and are scattered on different places around the world. Does Beeshoney bilieve the only people who visit WP are her/him and her/his friends??


 * 4- Some keep voters were judged to be the same person as Thomasshane, him being absent for a while, by Beeshoney. While I prefer not to judge Drmies and Beeshoney as the same person. Instead I conclude that Drmies has done his professional editorial duties, has gotten the necessary guidelines, and after positive changes on the article has been waiting for the other editors’ ideas and the final decision. But Beeshoney, as him/herself mention here, it is her/his first time to involve in a AfD project and s/he think s/he have to win this case!


 * Finally,I thank all professional editors to help us to make a strong article about Kourosh Zolani and I hope other editors come and give us useful comments to improve this article to keep it here. mamali (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Mrjalali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. This is not about anyone "winning a case". If a couple more reliable sources to back up clear notability are found im sure Beeshoney and others who voted delete (including me) will change their vote. But it comes down to the sources. There is only so much improvement to an article that can be made with limited sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable artist of highly unusual instrument who is credited on Grammy nominated artist's world music album . All the crap athletes and other rubbish and we can't make room for this distinguished musician? Sure he's in the early stages of masterful self-promotion, but he's got talent and including him improves the encyclopedia. Santur now santour forever!!! Freakshownerd (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I will change my mind if the article is significantly improved. However, the subject of the article must be notable, which, compared to most other Wikipedia articles, is not. There is no "case to be won" here. Just so you know I am keeping an eye on the article to see if it is being improved. Beeshoney (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've gone through and made inline notations within the article. These are the items and issues that need to be cleared up regarding the notability of this article. At this point, the article fails notability, because the claims made in the article cannot be verified. While it is true that foreign sources may be used, WP:NONENG states that translations must be available on request in order to verify dubious information presented in the article. These translations may be placed as footnotes in the article or added to the talk page if the translation is very long. Either way, without these translations, this article fails notability and verifiability. There are a few days left to bring this article into compliance with WP policy that would support inclusion. Anybody can claim notability all they want in this discussion. However, if the claims are not backed up by secondary and third-party sources, the claims mean nothing. Good luck. Cindamuse (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is clear, as user Cindamuse has shown, that the article is still not good enough. I still propose that the article is deleted, unless there are some very significant changes. I find it hard to believe that the article can be improved considering how scarce third party references are in English. Beeshoney (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Beeshoney, what is wrong with you? You ruined an article in a good shape for your own agenda? Do you even follow WP guidelines? Here is link to the article when I left it yesterday before, you made your edits. WP is based on common decency. You wrote “No reference saying he went to the University of Art in Tehran. No reference saying he studied classical composition. No reference saying he trained with Faramarz Payvar.)" What do you mean; you expect to see the artist college transcript? What is your agenda? This is way beyond constructive editing. Are you behaving like this because he is originally from Iran? Sozlati (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. I quoted several times from WP that it is all right to use non-English source in some circumstances: "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.” Why did you remove reliable sources in Farsi against WP rules? Unfortunately, I see a trend of anti-Iran activity in your edits. Sozlati (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Your edits have been reverted - Do not vandalise the article by re-inserting un-sourced information that has already been deleted for good reason. Your account may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue to do so. Please improve the article in it's current form, by adding references where the following phrases currently are: "says who?", "verification needed", "according to whom?", "citation needed", etc. It is not me who added the phrases, but rather, this user, as you can see from the article's history. The way you are behaving at the moment will not improve your chances of the article being kept. Beeshoney (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment.Your act of reverting all the edits at once is Vandalism; not my attempts trying to add new references one by one in response to the comments (see the page history). Did you even care to look at the new references to the radio interview and online radio stations before threatening to block my user account for “re-inserting un-sourced information”? Sozlati (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. It is not right to change someone's comment in AFD. I changed my comment to what is was, before user Beeshoney added something in the middle of it! Sozlati (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Referring to your previous comment, Wikipedia's Verifiability guideline goes on to say: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote". If you care to look at edit summaries the articles' history, some references were deleted because a translation was not provided, even after being given a second opportunity. You have once again (now a third time) re-inserted edits without a translation. Beeshoney (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I've said in edit summaries, I would be very surprised if you could find valid references for this article, due to the scarcity of third party sources on search engines. Beeshoney (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please open your mind; put away your distrust. I appreciate those who suggested keeping this article. However, in this discussion we have been mostly accused of being suspicious, cheaters, doing sock puppetry and so on. Do we get treated like this because we are originally from Iran?Sozlati (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Your ethnicity has nothing to do with this discussion, and doesn't alter my opinion of the article in any way. Please follow my suggestion above of adding references to the article in its current form, which may change my mind about whether to keep the article or not. Beeshoney (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. My act of reverting all of your edits using my Rollback rights does not constitute vandalism. Furthermore, you did not add any new references except links to the radio stations, but because of other sentences being deleted this is no longer relevant. Once again, please continue to improve the article in its current form, and once that has been completed (which I doubt because of a lack of third party references), you may add new sourced information to the article. Thank you. Beeshoney (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Stop it. All of you. Go to the article's talk page and discuss ways to improve the article. If the personal attacks continue I'll start blocking editors responsible. TFOWR 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * there are numerous comments here about editing the article. They belong on the article's talkpage, not here.
 * there are several examples of less than civil comments, and a few examples of personal attacks.
 * there are far too many comments that do nothing to address arguments for or against deletion.


 * Comment. OK, that's fine. I'll start putting these comments on the articles talk page. Beeshoney (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. I am not "attacking" any editors, nor do I wish to do so. Beeshoney (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here is the translation of the article in Iran Newspaper that we found in our archive: "A conversation with Kourosh Zolani about chromatic Santour".Sozlati (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment. I went through the new revision of the article. Some of the editors’ questions and comments on the body of the article are not even relevant to the topic. For example, asking why MUSIC was considered TABOO in Iran!! Are you aware of the current situation in Iran? Making this kind of arguments is like someone questions all the historical facts. It is like questioning the history of slavery, questioning World War I and II, questioning whether many protester in Iran were killed last year after the June 12th election and whether Neda the young Iranian girl was killed by the government gunmen. I think you don’t need to be from a certain country to know about some of their historical events, which the world was influenced by. Asking these types of information to be included in the article is a mind game to cause the deletion of the article. I still recommend to Keep the article. Thomasshane (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

''Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.'' Many statements have been in and about this subject of this article that cannot be verified. Accordingly, before the notability can be established, translation must be provided. Policy clearly states that if requested by other editors, the original content AND the translation must be provided. Short of that, this article fails notability and verifiability. No reliable sources are available to support inclusion. Cindamuse (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there seems to be a decent amount of sources available. Unfortunately these don't appear to be in English, but per WP:NONENG that should be acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are mistaken. Those espousing this view are taking the policy out of content. Foreign sources may be used. However, translations must be required. Here is the WP:NONENG policy in whole:


 * Comment. Here is the link to the translation of the article in Iran Newspaper. Also, here is the link to the article in Farsi.Sozlati (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Looks like we're getting somewhere. ;) Add this information to the footnotes, using appropriately placed inline citations within the article, or copy the translation to the talk page. Do not simply provide a link to the online translation, because oftentimes these links are removed or experience a location change. This would invalidate the source. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is a pdf file. I could not find how to upload a pdf file to an article. Thanks Sozlati (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. The article content needs to be transposed rather than uploaded. You could either use a .pdf → .doc utility or simply transpose the referenced section (in context) to support the claim in the article. Cindamuse (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. At the risk of being redundant, can I just point out that none of the sources in English about our subject count even remotely as reliable sources? The most reliable of 'em all is that link for the Grammy, but participating on one album, even if it wins a Grammy, does not make for automatic notability. If this is the only relevant thing that we can verify, then the subject deserves a redirect to that album, no more. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I apologize for having to repost part of my note from 02:03, 13 August 2010. According to the WP Notability guidelines for musicians, a musician should at least meet one of the criteria listed on the WP article to be considered notable.  The language of the reliable sources is not metnioned as a concern in WP Notability article.
 * Here are some of the criteria chosen from WP notability list that Kourosh Zolani meets:
 * 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Please see the reference section on Kourosh Zolani page which provides such sources.
 * 2. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Kourosh Zolani has been credited in several sources for modifying the Santour, an ancient instrument, and performing the new chromatic instrument in the different orchestrations for the first time in the history of this instrument.
 * 3. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. As mentioned above, Kourosh Zolani is a pioneer in performing and composing with chromatic santour.
 * 4. Has won or placed in a major music competition. One of Kourosh’s albums was awarded the Best Solo Instrumental Album of the Year in the Just Plain Folks International Contest in 2004. According to the organization’s website, this award is the world’s largest independent music awards.
 * 5. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Kourosh’s work was recently (July 16, 2010 at 1:00pm PDT) featured on the Jon Lewis Show on 6PR 882 radio station, an Australian radio with worldwide broadcast through the Internet. Here is the link to the interview..
 * There is enough support to keep this article. Sozlati (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Like myself, you sound like a broken record. We will never get anywhere until you figure out what our guidelines are for reliable sources. Please stop repeating yourself, cluttering up this AfD (which is already ridiculously long and filled with sock puppets and hollow verbosity), until you know what a reliable source is (I mean, really--that jpfolks website?). Drmies (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here is the link to an independent source about JPF awards written by Casy Rae-Hunter, communication director in Future of Music Coalition, a non-profit organization that works to support artists from diverse musical culture.
 * Comment. Please read Civility article which is part of WP code of conduct. Sozlati (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Has this source been used at all  Its a press release so hardly neutral, but the fact it is on  "Singapore's Finance Yahoo" site suggests a bit of notability and would seem a more reliable source than some of the others presently in the article. I must admit because of their dedication in keeping this page, i am considering atleast changing my support for delete to a relist, to give them longer to improve the article more and try and find some more sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you BritishWatcher for being fair. No, this source has not been used yet. Thomasshane (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Please continue the discussion above, and further discussions to do with improving the article, here. Also, just so you know, Sozlati, just because an article is notable does not mean it will be kept on Wikipedia if it doesn't have enough reliable sources. This is especially so when dealing with Biographies of Living Persons. Please familiarise yourself with this Wikipedia guideline, as you don't seem to have done so as of yet. Also, currently there is not enough support to keep the article. Remember that the outcome of this AfD is based not on the amount of votes, but on the value of the being arguments presented. Beeshoney (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I now support the deletion of this article even more than I did previously. The article now says that "He is known for designing and playing a playable chromatic santur." In what way is this notable? It used to say that "He is known for designing and playing the world's only playable chromatic santur.", but no references could be found to back this up. The fact that no references could be found shows just how un-notable this person is. Beeshoney (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I strongly support to keep the article because it is fully backed up with the sources now. Let’s not let our personal interest, opinion or judgment intervene in editing and improving this article. Thomasshane (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. that the instrument is unique is now sourced and there is an English translation. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to WP neutral point of view (NPOV), "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias…". With the help of several editors, the article was fairly presented Kourosh Zolani. However, an editor changed the content to poorly present the artist and undermine his work. The administrators who decide to keep or delete the article, please compare these two versions. I strongly supported to keep the article all along this discussion and tried hard to edit it base on WP guidelines. However, the article in this form harms the artist reputation and provides biased information to the WP readers. I don’t think it would have any value to keep it, if it represents ill information as it does in this form. Sozlati (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. The article is in its current form because you keep on inserting un-sourced information. As I have said many times, this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, if his instrument is unique, we need an online reference in English confirming this, not an Iranian Newspaper. If he really is that prominent, this shouldn't be difficult. At this current time, I still support deletion, as the article doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. In the past few days, very few new, third party sources that are in English have been added. Beeshoney (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Deletion rationale. So, what do we have after all is said and done? Beyond all the comments, we have:


 * 1) a lack of notability. WP:NRVE states that notability requires verifiable evidence. This article provides none.
 * 2) a BLP that lacks reliable sources to indicate that the subject of the article is notable.
 * 3) an article that claims that the subject is a composer, but provides no list or information to support or verify his work. The article provides no information on work that he has composed.
 * 4) a musician that plays what he claims is a unique instrument. We have no idea what makes this instrument unique.
 * 5) a statement from one of the original authors, in an attempt to provide clarification, stated that they were simply "trying to introduce notable artists and scientists from our community in Wikipedia to increase peace and understanding among our cultures." With all due respect, Wikipedia neither the U.N. nor the place to promote members of a community for whatever reason.
 * 6) several editors who have offered assistance in good faith to provide direction to the original authors of this article. This assistance has been refused. I have added inline notations to indicate where attention is needed within the article. The notations were read, ignored, and deleted. After a week, this article continues to lack support of reliable sources. It appears that his most notable contribution is serving as a session player in an album that was nominated for a Grammy Award.
 * Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted according to the following criteria within the deletion policy:
 * A. Promotional/Advertising article without relevant content
 * B. The article cannot be attributed to reliable sources
 * C. Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify article content has failed
 * D. Article fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:COMPOSER and so forth). It is very telling that as a musician and composer, he fails every criteria within those categories that would or could possibly establish notability.

That all said, this article needs to be deleted. It's not a racial slur or slight as has been mentioned above. Honestly, it's not personal. It's just policy. Cindamuse (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It can easily be pretended that the sources are not reliable and Kourosh Zolani has not done anything notable. The traditional Santour is an ancient diatonic instrument. Kourosh Zolani has modified it to a chromatic instrument for the first time in the history of this instrument. His compositions are now streaming all over the Internet radios. Choosing not to acknowledge his invention or his compositions, does not change the fact what he has done. An impartial judge can easily see what is going on here by checking this discussion, the article talk page, and the fair version of the article before an editor changed everything to a poor version. Truth speaks for itself. I will not repeat what I wrote here before about non-English reliable sources or notability criteria. Sozlati (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. With all due respect, what has Zolani invented? And if he has composed several pieces, why is it that not one is listed in this article? There have been several assertions made about the subject of this article, but they are not supported by reliable sources. Articles on Wikipedia either stand or fall based on the use of reliable secondary and third-party sources. The lede needs to establish the notability of the subject. The article states that Zolani has composed several pieces, but that statement is not backed up with reliable sources. The lede states that Zolani's instrument is unique, but fails to provide sources or clarification as to exactly what this means. Why is it so difficult to provide this information?

You speak of "fair" versions and "poor" versions. The inline notations are appropriate markups to indicate where the article needs attention and assistance in order to satisfy criteria for notability and inclusion on Wikipedia. These were provided to assist the editors that are striving to ensure that this article is not deleted. However, rather than using the notations as guidelines to improve the article, the notations have been ignored and at times arbitrarily deleted. It would be to your benefit to address those notations rather than ignore them. I have never experienced so many people actually going above and beyond to help others ensure that an article is kept, only to have their advice be tossed aside and ignored. This is truly sad. Cindamuse (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This information was in the article but different pieces have been removed from this article over and over that it hardly makes any sense now. The traditional Iranian Santour is a diatonic instrument. Kourosh Zolani’s invention is creating a “chromatic Santour”, which is for the first time in the history of this ancient instrument. A diatonic instrument is like a piano without the black keys; the chromatic instrument is like having a piano with both black and white keys. Over the history of Persian Santour, many had tried to create a chromatic santour but it remained in experimental phases and never became functional. Some even believed that it is impossible to design a chromatic santour.  That is why Zolani’s invention is notable.  This is backed up by Farsi articles which translations are available on the talk page. I would like to invite you to watch this music video on YouTube. Here kourosh zolani performs one of his pieces, “Memoires of Sangesar”, with his chromatic santour. This piece is full of chromatic intervals and modulations which is impossible to play it with a traditional santour. Regarding his compositions, there was a list of his works at the very beginning version of this article which someone removed them and called it self-serving. Here is a link to the list of his songs on iTunes.


 * Look, over the last few days, we followed your suggestions, translated the articles, and provided more third party sources. I don’t even dare to edit the article anymore and check things with the senior editors first (see the history of the edits). Honestly, do you believe yourselves the way some editors treat us here is with good faith and helping intentions? Sozlati (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Just an example to show that some editors are intentionally interfere with improving this article: an editor recently removed a citation to the piece in Mehr newsletter from the article, arguing the translation is not available. However, the translation of this article was provided the day before on the talk page. Sozlati (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. If a translation was available, it should have been in the article, NOT on the talk page. Beeshoney (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NONENG if the translations are too long they can be put on the talk page instead - which is why I stuck a long translation on the talk page and why the second one is there as well. If you want to put it in the article feel free to more it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Why are you deleting the comments? Can a user really do that? You don’t even let the editors to contribute to the discussion. What kind of logic is that? If anyone dose not agree with you should be deleted? Here is the link to what the user did. Thomasshane (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm just thankful that I'm not the admin who has to decide over his whole discussion. How long can an AfD get?! Beeshoney (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember that you can't just delete any comment because you don't like it. Please do not do it again. Thomasshane (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC).  (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I did not delete comments I do not like. I deleted comments that were to do with how to improve older revisions of an article, and are no longer relevant. I am not going to comment any further in this discussion until an administrator has made the decision, and I hope this article will be deleted. Beeshoney (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please make yourself familiar with discussion section in Guide to Deletion. This is a quote from the discussion guidelines: "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith."
 * Here is what you did which is against the Wikipedi’s discussion rules.
 * Why should you hope for an article to be deleted? The decision to keep an article should be based on Wikipedia’s rules not the personal desires. Thomasshane (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Admittedly a borderline case, but I just added this reference from Earth Times. The foreign language sources are easily translated and not a concern.  J04n(talk page) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Important Note. I would like to bring it to the administration’s attention that the user Beeshnoey has removed huge amount of our contributions to the discussion at different incidents over the last few days which was not previously noticed by other editors. Here are the incidents: on August 15, 2010 and August 16. The incident on August 16 was reverted but what was removed on August 15 is now missing from the discussion. Is this a good faith that a user has been trying to remove our comments from the discussion against WP rules before the administration makes final decision? Sozlati (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

'''If you desire to participate in the AfD to determine the closure of this article, the discussion must take place in this forum. Continue offering recommendations above this notice.'''

'''I have continued the conversation here. Please post all future messages to do with improving the article at this page.'''


 * Comment: I've just restored a whole swathe of deleted comments. I appreciate the editor(s) responsible did this in good faith, and have already agreed not to repeat this. I'll repeat it for the benefit of everyone: do not remove comments, !votes, whatever from this discussion. Yes, this AfD is a nightmare to read. No, that's not our problem. Some poor soul is going to have to wade through all this, and they have my deepest sympathies. But they're (presumably) experienced in wading through lengthy discussions - we shouldn't be second-guessing what they do and do not need to read. I'll note also that some of the comments removed were mine. I am officially outraged. TFOWR 22:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its also worth commenting that I presume that people claiming "no sources" have made some attempts to find sources in Farsi? It hardly seems fair otherwise to declare "no sources" for an Iranian whose native language doesn't even use the roman alphabet. Especially when he doesn't come from a country where English is widely spoken (such as India). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment and recommendation World music does not sell like Britney, and only a relatively small number of people in the English-speaking world understand, for instance, the importance of musicians such as Dr. Nico or even Charlie Christian to the way the guitar is played today. Unless you have some slight clue about the world of Iranian classical music, you really ought not be commenting here since you're unlikely to be able to assess notability. When an artist elicits articles in English from Iran, Pakistan and Palestine as well as having his own page in the site of Britain's most significant music paper, the NME and winning awards in the USA, I have trouble seeing him, as he has been represented above, as merely a "local community celebrity", and some aspects, some criticisms here, give rise for concern that good will and the upholding of sound Wiki information on fringe subjects is being sacrificed and all sorts of specious attacks upon every aspect of the article are being mounted by editors who have not the slightest interest or knowledge in the field. I find this unacceptable editing. For example, the lede is not, as tagged, an unfair summary of the article, nor is poor writing a reason for deletion. When I find such loose assertions mixed with pic-deletion requests and incivilities, I start thinking it is time the deletion-seekers took a good look at their aims - and preferably explained to me one good reason not to KEEP this article. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW here is the NME link: http://www.nme.com/artists/kourosh-zolani. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I note that use Cindamuse specialises in articles for deletion, usually backing deletion, and here provides the only organised and civil rationale for deletion. However I must disagree in user's assertion that the subject's record releases and compositions cannot be verified. Further, I have no option but to understand user's failure to understand the significance of the development of a chromatic santoor as wholly rooted in a lack of knowledge of music theory that user has not taken steps to correct.

Given the above, as notability may be a subjective matter, I like to compare articles that a given user DOES clearly rate as notable. I note that Cindamuse's Wiki-editing began with Heather Veitch, a USA stripper who became a missionary - and continued with several other missionary-girls, formerly, assertedly, "high class" prostitutes (an interesting concept). Ms Veitch scores one third of the hits of Zolani on Google. The references that establish her notability are;


 * A Myspace page.
 * A spam link to Ms Veitch's video sale site
 * An Iafrica article entitled "Holy hottie delivers naked truth"

I'd like politely to suggest to said user that s/he review the integrity of her notability requirements, ensuring that a single standard be applied and that s/he seek a modicum of understanding of the subject being edited and the article's place therein, before continuing to recommend deletion of articles, as I believe this will benefit Wikipedia. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Redheylin, this is an AfD. It's purpose is to discuss policy-based reasons for keeping or deleting an article. It is not the place to discuss another editor's motives for !voting, or another editor's conduct elsewhere. Your comment above appears to have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, and I'd encourage you to remove it. TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 13:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE: I understand the tenor of your comment yet, as I say, I am unhappy with standard of expertise and neutral application of policy in this field. The assertion of notability depends partly upon editor's subjective views and partly upon a degree of knowledge. I do not find myself in agreement with the standards and findings of notability asserted in the editor's resume above, and I wish to point out to the said user, who recommends many deletions, how easy it is to assume non-notability in a field in which one has no personal interest, as compared with the possibility of assuming notability in areas in which one has an interest. For example, I have an interest in world classical music, and this makes the article seem important to me. Therefore I am requesting the user to consider these things in the hope that the user will resubmit a more balanced resume of notability criteria in this case, which will presumably have some effect on the outcome of the present AfD. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well let me put it like this: your comment above was not pertinent to this AfD. It was an attack on an individual editor. Pull a stunt like that again and I'll either remove your comment or punt the issue to WP:ANI. Is that clear? <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 14:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an attack but an appeal or request. There is no incivility and no allegation of bad faith - quite the opposite. Your views and the way you express them are duly noted. However, if you take this or any matter to WP:ANI I suggest you ensure that your own comments are free from bullying language and unfounded allegations. Got that, sonny boy? Redheylin (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have got to say this, as I think it shows how well acquainted Thomasshane (and furthermore Sazlati because he said they are working as a group) are with Wikipedia's policies. In response to Redheylin's comment above, Thomasshane posted this thank you on Redheylin's talk page, thanking him/her for their "professional input" and "expert opinion" to this AfD. In all honesty I can't understand half of what Redheylin said, and it has nothing to do with this AfD. I can't wait for this AfD to come to a close (I don't care which way it goes, but I hope the administrator dealing with this case sees sense). Beeshoney (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: We talk about the article here not the editors. However, Beeshoney you should not weigh in this AfD discussion anymore because what you have done to mislead the integrity of the discussion so far. Please just stop it. Here are some examples:
 * This user deleted big parts of the other side comments from the discussion two times on August 15 and Agust16.
 * Here is a link to a barnstar from Beeshoney to another editor thanking his/her edits and contribution to this AfD discussion
 * Here is a link to special barnstar from Beeshoney to Drmies for “contributions to the (ridiculously long) AfD discussion”
 * Here is a link to a deleted conversation titled “kudos” between Beeshoney and another editor on Beeshoney talk page regarding planning and plotting for deleting this article.
 * Just stop this unconstructive approach. Let us do the work to improve this article. Thomasshane (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given how much bad faith there has been I suggest the discussion is closed as a default keep. If the article doesn't reach an acceptable standard it can be renominated in 3-6 months. The article isn't so bad that it will destroy Wikipedia by staying, and its not like its a featured article or anything like that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, should be closed as Keep. If there has been no improvement to the article in a few months and no new sources provided then renomination. Relisting now would continue the mess which has been the debate above. Its clear the guy does exist and has a limited amount of notability at least. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This AfD process has been compromised by proponents and opponents. The article seems to deserve a chance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 18 August 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.