Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Moridpour


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Neda Moridpour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ARTIST. The references in the article are one of two: not independent of the subject; are directly written from organizations, which fail WP:SOURCE. The subject lacks significant coverage from third-party reliable sources, and simply does not appear notable. ℯ xplicit  02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She has gotten these coverages as an artist as well as an activist. For these reasons she passes WP:GNG which most of the time surpasses WP:ARTIST. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you've done some work and have replaced some references, but the underlying problems of Neda Moridpou failing to be the main subject of various, significant coverage from sources independent of her are still vastly left in tact. As of this revision, this is what the sources offer: 1) The most legitimate reference in the article, this does talk about Moridpour. The article is about her art exhibit with S.A. Bachman. That's pretty much it. 2) Written by an organization which "provides each funded project with up to $50,000 in direct funding and career development service", although the disclaimer in the provided sources does read: "Although these projects were not ultimately funded by Creative Capital". Fails WP:SOURCE regardless. 3) Co-written by Moridpour, and is therefore not an independent source. 4) Written by Moridpour and falsely attributed to Sarah Moawad (I can't find the surname 'Moawad' anywhere in the article). 5) She is not mentioned in the source. 6) I don't have access to this source. However, if its purpose is solely to show that her work is included here, this isn't significant coverage. 7) Written by the college where she is an alumni, and not independent. 8) Written by the festival organization, where her work was shown; not entirely independent. So, even now, Moridpour herself has not been subject to significant coverage from sources independent from her to establish her notability.  ℯ  xplicit  11:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Substantial independent sources not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep Her work is reviewed in the LA Times, OC Weekly, and Entertainment Close up (subscription needed). I would expect that there may be reviews in Farsi since she's been interviewed on Farsi-language radio. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work in digging up these sources but they seem to give only WP:BLP1E. Tyros are rarely notable; more substantial career achivement is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Hello. Did you see this? It seems VOA Farsi did a 6-minute report (mostly) about her in 2013. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I assessed the LA Times article above in my response to Antonioatrylia. OC Weekly mentions her in passing. What does the third source entail? Finally, the awbw.org source is from an organization that displays her work, which also fails WP:SOURCE. As WP:GNG reads: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. It additionally reads: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The topic here is Neda Moridpour, but say very little about her directly, and more about the exhibitions where her work, along with that of others, is displayed. The article contains several references to make the subject look notable, but it really comes across as WP:REFBOMB. ℯ  xplicit  00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging (I mistakenly thought Biwom had made the original keep argument).  ℯ  xplicit  00:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. I wouldn't imagine Voice of America is affiliated with Neda Moridpour. Did you watch the video? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment was in regards to the website you linked. As I do not speak the language, the only bit I understood was the English between 3:45–4:16. Is this a language you understand? If so, can briefly summarize the report and clarify if Neda Moridpour is talked about in detail, or if it's just the exhibit? ℯ  xplicit  01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pinging me! The subject's work is reviewed in the LA Times, OC Weekly and Entertainment Close Up. A person is not an insignificant artist if they're reviewed in the LA Times and I feel the other reviews help add to her significance. Also, REFBOMB doesn't apply if what's added to the article are reliable, independent sources showing that her work is being reviewed, or that she is in the media. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:57, 22 April 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.