Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization of Iranian American Communities


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Organization of Iranian American Communities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet the notability guideline for organizations criteria. Since it is a front organization for the NCRI, I suggest a redirect to the latter. Pahlevun (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * comment in this series of more than 15 edits,, the nominator here, removed most of the 21 citations then in the article, and most of the text that they had supported. Generally this was on the stated ground that these were self-published and/or "unreliable". One of the sources designated as unreliable was a report from CNN. I have not investigated the quality of the other sources removed during this series of edits, but this sort of reduction of an article to a near-stub during or just before an AfD nomination is not usually, in my view, good practice. I urge those commenting in this discussion to consider this version of the article as well as the current version. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should have speedy deleted the article becuase the edits made since the creation were not "significant". Anyway, what you call a report from CNN, was posted by a user named "FreeIranNews" on iReport, and as it is asserted in the page, it is "not verified by CNN". So, this is a self-published source. I have carefully examined the sources, and I would like to shed light on the rest of the self-published/unreliable sources, which include:
 * Two links from ncr-iran.org (Official website of the NCRI, for which this organization serves as a front)
 * iacnorcal.com (Official website of the 'Iranian American Community of Northern California', another NCRI front)
 * mojahedin.org (Official website of the MEK, the parent organization of the NCRI)
 * iranfreedom.org (Closely associated with the MEK and NCRI)
 * deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com (Yes, a blog)
 * adventuresindevelopment.com (Another blog)
 * Seven statements by the organization itself were used as a source, which were linked on prnewswire.com, highbeam.com, eventbrite.com, marketwatch.com and ssuchronicle.com
 * cafebabel.co.uk link says "This article has not been vetted by an editor at Paris HQ", making it a blog post like CNN iReport

—Pahlevun (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As to the speedy deletion, adding or removing a source citation is always a significant edit.
 * I note, that you several times refer to the OIAC as a . This may well be true, but is there a citable source that says so? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also note that self-published statements by anj organization expressing its own views are generally considered proper, even preferred, sources for those views. And of course such sources can be used for basic factual detail, such as the date of founding, current officers, location, etc of an organization. Of course they do not contribute to notability in any way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, NCRI runs many front and shell organizations, some of them are listed here with a reliable source. Moreover, there are other sources designating them as such, like this report by Eli Clifton or this one by Al-Monitor that calls it "NCRI-linked", with an office "located right next door to the NCRI office". Even the source used in the article, which is published by NBC, doubts that this organization is non-profit, because it "doesn’t appear in a federal database". Anyway, this article seems a mean of promotion to me, which justifies the excessive citations used. Pahlevun (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but revert to version of 26 December 2016 and protect the page.  Page has a long history of non neutral (attack) edits, like this one, and of mass deletions by Nom.  However, the organization is described by mainstream media in recent coverage.  Here is the Voice of America 2018, as "a U.S.-based Iranian-American group that calls for replacing Iran’s Islamist leadership with a democratic, secular government.."US Senators Pledge Help to Iranian Group Seeking End to Iran's Islamist Rule,; 2017 U.S. News & World Report, "The rally, organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, highlighted human rights abuses and called for democratic change in Iran. ", "Protesters Rally Against Iranian President at United Nations".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . Both are examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement and thus not enough to establish notability. Pahlevun (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and revert to an earlier (more neutral) version per E.M.Gregory's suggestions above. London Hall (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Here I'm going to apply the criteria mentioned at Notability (organizations and companies) to prove that none of the sources establish notability: These were the sources used in this version. The sources broght out by : Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be a multiple of such qualifying sources. And those voting in favor of keeping the article have failed to provide such sources, as my investigation shows. Instead, I have provided three reliable sources that assert that OIAC is a front organization. —Pahlevun (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert per and 's suggestion.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. This discussion has turned into a polling.
 * Special NOTE: I boldly restored the earlier version of 26 December 2016 per emerged consensus. This was reverted by good faith but per WP:EDITATAFD I have reverted that edit. Also, I changed a redirect of Organization of Iranian American Communities (OIAC) from National Council of Resistance of Iran. Lacking more clear sourcing or consensus (more than one author) it could not be redirected to the article or the Front and shell organizations section without advancing serious bias or subversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
 * I assume that "consensus" is not achieved by popular vote, but rather through discussions. Users who support keeping the article, have only made arguments that are discouraged in deletion discussions (except E.M.Gregory), failing to show how it meets the Notability (organizations and companies). I have assessed notability requirements above, suggesting that it does not meet the criteria. No one has commented on the assessment, yet those voting keep believe the subject is notable. How can you justify that? Pahlevun (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, the refs support gng, not through any single deep ref but an accumulation of lesser mentions. Szzuk (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please name the references that support the gng? Pahlevun (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think my comment was clear enough. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . Then explaining how "an accumulation of lesser mentions" can establish notability would enlighten me, because I can see that significant coverage in multiple sources is the criteria. Pahlevun (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I could easily dig up more reliable sources (like the Associated Press with a google search, which I added tot the article. This proves this organization is notable enough for Wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. But Trivial mentions are insufficient to establish that topic's notability. Can you find sources with significant depth of coverage? Pahlevun (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The OIAC was credited as organizer. That is not trivial.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The rally, organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, highlighted human rights abuses... With all due respect, this single mention is trivial (just like the example here: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.), and is not even included the body, but rather is used as a footer for the image. Pahlevun (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe your explanation is invalid. This is not about some trivia concerning a politician; this is about the organizer of the event that is the topic of the article. Again, that is not trivial.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability: "...it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." Pahlevun (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N says: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The disputed fragment is about an event that is mentioned IN an article. Thus, your appeal to Notability fails. Jeff5102 (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Reply I got in on this discussion far into the timeline but one thing for certain is that I cannot just go by the state of the article or citations therein. You are correct that notability is more than routine news reports. I see an organization in the United States with at least 40 member organizations and cannot just assume that there is no notability because it is not in the article or that what is there fails notability. The organization has coverage like Voice of America as well as what what looks like credible reporting concerning OIAC and OIAC of of Arkansas, but I consider this junk reporting from PRWEB (Cision) (See how it works) that is about as unreliable as can be, considering they advertise "if you pay us we will get it reported". I have yet to !vote because in all fairness I do assume there is notability not found. I see the primary site for OIAC of Az, BuzzFeed discusses Iranian-American Community of Arkansas, a branch of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, and the now delisted "MEK". Unlike many that weigh in on a AFD I do not "fly by" !vote but tend to check back in. "IF" I do not find multiple reliable sources that are not WP:Primary, closely connected, or paid, and the ADF closes as "keep" I will be on the band wagon to give just as much research to have it deleted in the future. Currently I am not satisfied with the sourcing presented in the article  and looking for sources to satisfy WP:ORGCRITE but on my only day off I am working around other projects. I saw consensus was that the article be reverted (restored) to a previous version so I did that and trying to located sources to further advance notability. Please bear in mind that a source acceptable for content may not give weight to notability but may still be reliable for content. Otr500 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Argument for deletion seems to be based on an overzealous interpretation of WP:N guidelines (and a clear failure to take WP:NEXIST into account). The organization is mentioned, to at least some depth, multiple times in reliable sources (those given above by EM Gregory easily fit that criteria) and there has been definitvely "extended" coverage in sources. If this was one trivial mention in one source, then yes delete. Except there are multiple, non-trivial mentions in sources, and WP:TRIVCOV doesn't require that all coverage be extensively about the article subject. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2018 (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.