Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nama-i haftegi-i kuhistan


 * 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. Consensus that notability doesn't seem currently established, and a draftify consideration was specifically opposed. As always, should the subject change and notability become more establishable in the future, a request for a draft can be made at that point Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nama-i haftegi-i kuhistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for WP:GNG and no WP:RS exist to show that it meets any criteria of WP:NJOURNALS. The three references in the article are identical and the two external links go the same site, one to the home page with no info on the journal and one which contains a digital version of the publication.  // Timothy ::  talk  22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify. Not a COI precisely, but the creator of this article seems to be affiliated with an archive at the University of Bonn. Presumably they were looking through the University's collections and wanted to make this (apparently quite obscure) journal known. Perhaps if we gave this new article some time to develop, a claim to notability might arise. At present, it does not look notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd be happy to see this result., if you can post sources/reasons for thinking this might meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination.  // Timothy ::  talk  23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The SandDoctor  Talk 03:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Two relists later and there has been no effort into improving this. Draftification should be reserved for situations where we have some reason to believe that improvement will occur, not as a back door to deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. has created a whole slew of similar articles, all without much sourcing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2020 (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.