Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

One Woman's War: Da (Mother)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poor notability and lack of reliable sources. There are only some dependent Iranian references in the article that just introduce the book. There is nothing which can make the book notable. ● Mehran Debate● 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, As the page creator I believe that the subject is absolutely notable. To clarify my point, I'd like to refer you to Notability (books) where it's mentioned that "A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article." Having the above point in mind, the subject is notable per WP:BKCRIT:
 * The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. As the article says, a TV program is adapted from this subject. Also, Aryn Baker, the Middle East Bureau Chief for TIME, had a conversation with Seyyedeh Zahra Hossein, the narrator of the book.
 * One Woman's War: Da (Mother) won the title of "selected book" in the second round of Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Awards,"Iran's most lucrative literary award".
 * The translator is notable. Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mhhossein. Meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple reviews, and has won a significant award. -- Green  C  16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I got author and book confused, it should be WP:BKCRIT #1. -- Green  C  14:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It won the 2009 Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award (in a category) which is Iran's "most lucrative award". This qualifies for WP:BKCRIT #2 "major literary award". -- Green  C  16:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the following discussions, the awards is not a major one in its own category so it would not bring any notability to the book. ● Mehran Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mhhossein. Meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about a book, not an author. So your reasons may be irrelevant here. ● Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment somehow is a !vote. ● Mehran Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. User:Green Cardamom has been canvassed here by the article creator and his !vote should be taken with a pinch of salt. The sources cited are worthless, and the award mentioned is one instituted by the totalitarian Iranian government.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is on my watchlist. I saw this AfD regardless of what people might post on my talk page and I would have posted here regardless. Most awards in Iran are state, just as they were in the USSR etc.. notability knows no border, if it's notable in Iran it's notable. -- Green  C  22:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No it isn't.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was absolutely an Appropriate notification. However, how Iran, Germany, US or any other country is governed has nothing to do with this discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. The totalitarian way Iran is governed precludes reliability, which is a central pillar of notability. As for the notification, there is nothing appropriate about notifying an editor who you know to be disposed to agree with you. User:AliAkar, who has now been blocked for racism and sockpuppetry, tried the same thing with the editor in question.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer to stay focused on the subject, I don't care how other editors behave. Green  is an expert in this field. Mhhossein (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In what field? And on the basis of what?--Anders Feder (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that both Anders Feder and Mehran have not edited Wikipedia for a very long time, weeks, then both show up at the same time and place in this AfD and nowhere else. And they are both the only one's voting Delete. And then Anders Feder is throwing around all sorts of bad faith accusations and attempts to frame people for bad behavior. What's going on here? Probably something happening over at the Persian Wikipedia. Anders Feder, is there, how did you find out about this? I don't speak Persian but have access to Google Translate. -- Green  C  04:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what might be happening on Persian Wikipedia. I was following the AliAkar SPI. Mhhossein has edited many of the same articles as AliAkar, including ones on various obscure Iranian books, and has created this one, which you happened to have commented on. That was probably a complete coincidence. If you didn't come here because you was notified, I take your word for it.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Green : You can have a brief view of how Anders Feder has acted similarly in the past by checking this link. Mhhossein (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing that link. Tells me all I need to know. -- Green  C  14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The references of the article are not reliable at all, they are not independent either. Tebyan, which Mhhossein showed above, had never been a reliable source and everyone who is able to read Persian can confirm it. All the sources are Iranian dependent websites and you could not find any non-Iranian source that covers the article and makes it notable. The translator's article has been created recently and again it is not notable either and probably will be deleted soon. And please watch out your words, you are accusing Anders Feder and me, I can edit in Wikipedia whenever I like and my next edit may be in next 10 years, so please read WP:NPA and be careful for the future not be blocked for your personal attacks. ● Mehran Debate● 07:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not an admin on English Wikipedia so don't threaten to block people. If you have a problem with NPA than open a case and lets look all the facts, but given what I have seen it would be a boomerang. --  Green  C  14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike fa.wikipedia, editors have to act more precise and choose words more carefully here. Your comment needs a huge "clean up"; 1- Please consider that reliability is a relative concept, So you have to mention for what kind of materials a certain source is unreliable (or reliable). 2- per WP:IS, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic". Could you please tell us how you found Tebyan dependent on this subject? Or, could you please tell us what you mean by "independent"? 3- The fact reported by Tebyan is a FACT which is some thing like reporting weather forecast! So, regardless of the source we know that the book had been the subject of a TV documentary. 4-That the The translator's article has been created recently,changes nothing and his page has no influence on his notability. Mhhossein (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are talking about another Wikipedia project here; 1- This is my job to ask you why you think this is an reliable source? Tebyan is a mirror website, there are lots of copyright violations and non-NPOV contents in it. Of course English people cannot understand Persian and they may be misled by wrong words. 2- Both of Tebyan and Sureh Mehr publications (which has published the book) are subsidiaries of "Islamic Dissemination Organization". 3- The FACT has to be published in a reliable source, Tebyan is even not a reliable weblog! 4- I do not care about the translator, I only answered your first paragraph. ● Mehran Debate● 07:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The parent organization, "Islamic Dissemination Organization" or "Islamic Development Organization", was established "by Late Imam [Khomeini]’s command", i.e. it is state-owned. IRIB TV4, where the TV adaptation (not documentary) of the book was broadcast, is also state-owned. So the program clearly fails WP:BKCRIT's requirement that the source be "independent of the book itself".--Anders Feder (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * East is east and west is west. I wondered how you could make this inter-relationships! There's actually no vested dependance between the subject and the state TV channel! according to the channel official website, the programs is a documentary. FYI, the English translation is published by Mazda publishers located in US. Mhhossein (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonder all you want. Denying reality won't make it go away.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been said in Tebyan that the program has been broadcasted on Channel1, while your latter link has mentioned Channel4. Consider these contradictions, that is why they are not reliable sources. We even do not know if such program has been existed or really broadcasted. Please bring some reliable sources ad then we will talk about it. ● Mehran Debate● 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You said "you could not find any non-Iranian source that covers the article and makes it notable". Are you saying that on Iranian topics only non-Iranian sources make it notable? Surely you don't mean that, or are you simply misinformed about how notability works? -- Green  C  14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have selected one of my sentences and written what you think about it! As I saif before, all of the "Iranian" sources on this article are non-reliable or dependent and I see no reason to repeat here my previous edits again. ● Mehran Debate● 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are absolutely right on that.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you can read persian, then you will see that Channel 4 broadcasted the program for the "second time"! So, there's actually no contradiction. How funny it would be! Mhhossein (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ● Mehran  Debate● 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment All other things aside, why does the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award not count? I dont see how an award given by a totalitarian regime is any less notable than one given by any other country. Bosstopher (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you think the award counts is up to you and you alone. The notability of the award is not what is being questioned here. It is its reliability as a source. WP:BKCRIT uses the language "major literary award", which isn't very unambigious. Is it major? I don't know. I suppose to someone who supports the Iranian regime, or its legitimacy as an interlocutor of the Iranian people, it might be. But any interpretation that acts as a backdoor around WP:RELIABILITY is invalid as far as I am concerned. And if the award is major, why don't we see an abundance of reliable sources covering the winning book itself?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The book is not notable and the article lacks any reliable sources. Also please discount GreenC's comments as they has been canvassed.Mbcap (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is not what you think it is. The notification was neutral (did not ask to vote a certain way), it was appropriate for an involved editor (I've worked on some of these articles before, including other AfDs, and it was on my watchlist). See Canvassing. --  Green  C  03:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You also created the article on the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award which is cited here as a source. Certainly your being involved cannot be disputed.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It simply passes notability criteria per WP:BKCRIT #1 and #2. The award adds enough weight to the subject's notability.‬‎-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Bosstopher and Kraxler comments, the award is not a major one and would not satisfy the criteria then. ● Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator has opened 4 AfDs. They are all article created by User:Mhhossein. The nom has voiced intention to open more AfDs for articles created by Mhhossein - they will be added to this list if so.
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War
 * Articles for deletion/That Which That Orphan Saw
 * Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi
 * -- Green C  04:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to do so and I will report this in WP:AN. And please read WP:CANVASS too. This is the second time you are talking about irrelevant subjects. ● Mehran  Debate● 10:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only am I "allowed" to do that as a courtesy to other editors, it's something you should have done yourself which is done all the time when there is a grouping of related AfDs. Are you trying to hide something? -- Green  C  15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Ladsgroupoverleg 11:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per other comments above. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 12:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @HullIntegrity: Which comment exactly? (since the comments mostly are irrelevant to the article topic). Your comment somehow is a !vote. ● Mehran Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow-up @ Mehran   I am specifically agreeing with Seyyed as per  WP:BKCRIT #1 and #2. I apologize that you did not understand. I should have made it obvious. I was also unaware of any policy requiring comments on every single vote. If there is such a policy or guideline can you direct me to it?  HullIntegrity  \ talk / 12:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @HullIntegrity: consensus on Wikipedia is it the result of a vote and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote (ref). ● Mehran Debate● 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment' @ Mehran --I was unaware that I was "attempting to structure the AfD process" since I do comment (see, for example, above and below, and my history on AfD and in general), but I will keep your suggestions in mind as we move forward with consensus on this article and any others where we may cross paths. If, in the future, you feel I need instruction on Wikipedia, please consider doing so on my Talk page as it seems inappropriate here.  HullIntegrity  \ talk / 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BKCRIT #1. Even if the sources are influenced by the State, they do not meet the exclusion criteria under BKCRIT#1.  These are major sources of news, and therefore the subject is likely to be familiar to a large population, making the topic of encyclopedic value.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 12:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per 78.26's comments. Following the "it doesnt count because totalitarian regime" argument, would ultimately mean almost all art, literature and television that comes out of Iran would have to be deleted. Also Note to closing admin this AfD has very likely become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, for a fawiki dispute, please read my comment here for context. Bosstopher (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bosstopher: You are raising the argument that Iranian state sources should not be held to the same standards of WP:RELIABILITY as all other sources lest it would entail a systemic bias against Iran. You are entitled to that view, but the overwhelming consensus is against it.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking that, it was an interesting read. Based on what I said I have to say I partially agree with Seyyed on this. Magazines and papers on zoology and the like published in Iran, should not be considered unreliable just because of political repression in the press. Iran is currently one of the top 10 ranked countries for STEM cell research [isg-mit.org/projects-storage/StemCell/stem_cell_iran.pdf] and high ranking internationally in other scientific sectors. The idea that all scientific papers coming out of the country should be disregarded just because a bunch of Ayatollahs with political influence spend too much time pondering over whether or not touching animals in certain place is Najis, quite frankly seems silly. This article is of course a very different scenario. The sources as it stands seem not to meet the independence standards for BKCRIT, and I didn't realise until now that it didnt win the top Jamal al-Ahmed award, just a minor one. The article also needs MAJOR copyediting work, and some cleanup. However I noticed that the fawiki version of the article has more sources. Could someone who's better than me at reading farsi, check if the sources in that version of the article are independent enough to meet BKCRIT? I've withdrawn my Keep for the meantime. Will work on cleaning up the article if it turns out there's a second independent review. Bosstopher (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, I checked the sources in fawiki. only contains a news report and there is no review.  is not existed.  is a news report that the writer tells she is not willing to create a documentary from her book.  is a news report about translating the book into English, and into Arabic as well., ,  are dead links,  is also a news report and there is no review, and finally  tells us that the publication has sold lots of War books in a specific month of the year. I am here to explain more if it is required. P.S: I also nominated the fawiki article for deletion. ● Mehran  Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that the 895+ cases of political imprisonment registered by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran last year were due to the convicted individuals having "touched animals in certain place" is welcome on the RfC. To the extent that any vitally important stem cell research comes out of Iran, it will almost always be covered by external, reliable sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who is from the medical field, the stem cell research standing of Iran is known because their publications are vetted, reviewed and cited by other reliable sources around the globe. This is the same way we establish the correctness of a British published academic article where we apply the same standard as, it is also vetted and cited by other reliable sources around the globe. This book does not even come close to the same standards of verifiability. We should apply these standards equally to all articles, otherwise we will be making articles on all sorts of rubbish books. Mbcap (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I kind of went off topic and failed to clarify. My comments about stem cell research where in reference to claims by Anders on this talk page, that all scientific sources coming out of Iran should be dismissed as unreliable. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, so I've copied it there now. Delete The article per reasoning of Kraxler below, and inability to find a second independent review.Bosstopher (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep (changed from Comment)
 * WP:BKCRIT #1 says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." There are currently 5 refs in the article: #1 is ok; the criteria does not require the source being "reliable" (just look at the wording), the source is required to be independent and to review the book, not just mention it. # 2 is the English version publisher, and thus does not qualify; # 3 and # 5 are links to news channels in Persian language, and is unverifiable right now, some Persian speaker may come forward with a translation, and vouch for it's content, though; # 4 is the original Persian version's publisher, and does not qualify; # 5 has an English version of the news, but searching for Zahra Hosseini yields no results. That leaves us at the moment with exactly one of the required minimum of two non-trivial mentions.
 * WP:BKCRIT # 2 says: "The book has won a major literary award." The book really won an award in 2009, but did not win the top award, it won in one of the minor categories. While the top award of the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Awards seems to be the literary prize with the highest award money in Iran, the minor categories may not be major awards under this criterion.
 * Something that would indicate notability more than these criteria is that the book had more than 100 editions in Iran. That seems to indicate that it was somewhere near the top of some bestseller list, or may be considered important under BKCRIT # 3, but it would need sources to confirm that.
 * I also beg everybody to discuss the subject of this deletion proposal, and not the !voters' intentions. Also, it is irrelevant whether a single participant here was "canvassed" or "notified" to participate here. This is not a headcount vote, it's a discussion of reasons to include or exlude something, and the decision is made by weighing the arguments. So, please argue. Kraxler (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You analyzed the article very well, I also strongly second your last sentences. Finally you think this article should be kept or deleted? ● Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: There are now 2 more sources, # 2 mentions the category prize for the book, but does not review it. # 3 does not mention this book at all. It says that the top award is worth 110 gold coins, but we know already that the category prizes receive only about 25 gold coins. The previously numbered sources 2 to 5 are now numbered 4 to 7. Mehran, I've not come to a conclusion yet whether the book should be kept or deleted. after considering the below added sources, I think the article should be kept. Kraxler (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Updated. Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking out the internet I found this: Persian Novel ‘Da’ in Spanish, Character of war memoir “Da” dies at 81, The Book DA, A Different Epic of Sacred Defence and An Iranian Woman's Memoir on the Iran–Iraq War: The Production and Reception of "Da". The last one was published in Iranian Studies (Volume 46, Issue 6, 2013) and should qualify as a review under BKCRIT # 1. Maybe somebody weighs the sources and adds something to the article. I have added these sources to the article. There are now three independent reviews, plus miscellaneous coverage, which should be good enough to keep this article. Kraxler (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Updated. Kraxler (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your second source, Tehran Times, is owned by the same entity as the book's publisher, namely Islamic Development Organization. Your third source, IRIB World Service, is owned by the same entity as Islamic Development Organization, namely the Iranian state. Counting Financial Tribune and Iranian Studies as independent, which one is the third independent review?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Mehr News Agency, referred to above as "ok", is also owned by Islamic Development Organization.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources should be "independent of the subject", that means in this case "not directly envolved in the production and (for economical reasons) the promotion of the book". Tehran Times and IRIB are independent enough under these guidelines, they did not produce the book, and they do not primarily promote the book, but rather comment on what interests their readers/listeners. Kraxler (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a novel interpretation of independence. The notes on WP:NBOOK says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough" and that one should be "careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source" considered.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you would throw out a New York Times review of this book if you found out that one Iranian citizen bought one share in the paper's holding company? Ok, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I suppose you would vote for the deletion of Earth because, we can safely agree on that, there are no sources independent of that subject, they were all published on Earth. You see, to define  "independence" (under the rules cited by you) is not as easy as you think. I still hold the view that neither the Tehran Times nor IRIB are in any way commercially interested in the sale of the book, or that their reviews have been the cause that 150 editions have been sold by now. They reviewed the book because, for whatever reason, it's something that interested their readers. So, Anders, what about this review found by Drako? Is the University of Tehran independent of the subject? Kraxler (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Due to the addition of sources, the numbering led to some confusion. The Tehran Times did not review the book. They published an obituary of a person whose only "claim to fame" was having been the real-life counterpart of one of the main characters of this book. The book was reviewed by IRIB, the outside Iran published academic journal Iranian Studies, and the University of Tehran's Sociological Journal of Art and Literature, currently refs # 6, 7 and 8. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Related ANI discussion that involves this AfD. -- Green  C  15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear enough notability ,considering the difficult we have in sourcing these at the enWP.  DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With all previous discussions it is clear the book is not notable. please explain more for us why you think the book is notable? ● Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment Although the book may have the local notability, the context should be changed. Several parts need more significant references as well as the propaganda which must be deleted. For instance, how important is the statement of the author about Gaza? Why isn't cited to TIME instead of a local web-site?--Sahehco (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per source- Samək Talk 10:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per decent sourcing, passes GNG. Cavarrone 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kraxlr after a lot of horrible flipflopping. Bosstopher (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep If notability is the concern of worldwide recognition ignoring the notability in region or popularity in culture then we may discuss further. Otherwise notability in the region and in its customs is apparent itself.  In this sense deletion does not cover the parameter of deletion.  Nannadeem (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the book has been subject of deep coverage in independent reliable sources. Namely, the academic journal Iranian Studies has published a detailed critique of the book, Farsi academic journals have also published multiples articles on it ;  SOCIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF ART AND LITERATURE (published by the University of Tehran) Abstract in English .--Drako (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2015 (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.