Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanaz Alasti


 * 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. This is, as David Eppstein rightly observed, a mess. Academics need to pass either WP:ACADEMIC or, failing that, the WP:GNG to warrant inclusion. There's definitely consensus among those who argued the point that Alasti fails WP:ACADEMIC. If you leave aside the warring sockfarms, there's also consensus that the mentions in the media coupled with her publication history to date do not yet make her notable. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanaz Alasti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor. The same editor (and another) posted their rationales on the article's talk page; I have copied their comments here verbatim. On the merits, I have no opinion. I have, however, taken the liberty of notifying the article's primary author, User:Aafakhravar, of this debate. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The subject lacks significance. She is an assistance Professor at a university not noted for excellence in her area.In addition the material is inaccurate, listing her as an author of books she translated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.213.83 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I second her deletion. The subject is not an expert in her field.  The wiki page is for the most part written as a CV and the principal author is the subject's friend.  The boasting also is unsubstantiated by the subject's publication.  Most of the credited sources appear to be translations and not actual works she contributed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniantruth (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Two people above say the article should be deleted because the content is bad, and maybe it is, but this person meets notability criteria so the article should be kept. Here are three sources which support her notability:
 *  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To counter the above point. One interview with the New Yorker does not impart notoriety. Andisheh TV is a Iranian satellite network that has no credibility, operates on a limited budget, has a small audience and is more akin to a local public broadcasting network. Lastly, the subject's invitation to ISISC is due to the uniqueness of her subject matter and not due to her expertise. She is a recent SJD graduate from one of the worst law schools in the U.S. Her one book was published from one of the worst publishers in the US. To impart her notoriety based on these factors would be inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pieces to a puzzle. One source about the subject does not demonstrate notability. Several? That's different. But I will agree that Youtube is generally not a reliable source (though the underlying source of the video might be). UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

≠I would usually agree with the above point except for the following. The key point though is the quality of the underlying sources not quantity. For instance, if the subject was quoted in 15 blogs, none with significant distribution or prestige, then the subject would not be notorious enough to warrant her own wikipedia page. Equally with this subject, we only have one passing reference in the New Yorker. The remaining sources do not indue the subject with notoriety. The article in the Examiner was a blog posting by an anonymous author, likely the author herself or an affiliate of the university she recently joined. It concerns a presentation she intended to deliver at a conference. Equally, the tv interview was with a unknown Iranian satellite station which, if you view it, looks like it was produced in a make-shift studio developed in someone's garage. So apart from the New Yorker interview, this new graduate hasn't done anything to give her enough significance to warrant inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete In addition to all the valid points above about the credibility of the sources, translating a number of books in a subject matter and authoring a book would not make her pass the notability evaluation. Saeed (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep She is an international scholar, so some of her books are in Farsi(Persian). I just found out some of her books are available in the law library of prestigious law schools such as Harvard:
 * {{cite web |url=http://lms01.harvard.edu:80/F/6RRS6NULQYTLDT271XXTNNF3U47ETRYPJIF7LX7YMQNJ9889YA-06288?func=find-acc&acc_sequence=069976321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete None of those books are published by credible publishers. And all of them were donated to the law school by the author herself.  There is nothing prestigious about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I also agree with the above points. Ms. Alasti is not a well known figure in any respect.  Her academic profile is particularly suspect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

≠I To counter the above point. The subject books are available in more than 82 accredited law schools. How the author can donate her books to 100 accredited law schools? :*{{cite web |url=http://www.worldcat.org/title/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-comparative-perspective-in-international-conventions-the-united-states-and-iran/oclc/317753158&referer=brief_results                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       All of her books are published by credible publishers: Mizan publishing is the most prestigious law publisher in Iran. Vandeplas Publishing in Florida is just publishing legal academic books. Several prominent professors such as Russell G. Murphy, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston and Mark S. Brodin, Professor of Law at Boston College Law School have published their books with Vandeplas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ironically both Russell G. Murphy and Mark S. Brodin similarly fail to have wiki pages in relation to them. There's also no way to validate that Mizan publishing is the "most prestigious law publisher in Iran." Typically, international law texts and criminal law texts are published by established institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, etc. The notoriety of the publisher permits the reader to ensure that the book has been properly vetted. There's no suprise her that the author's books aren't being published by any credible publisher. The author is a very recent graduate of one of the worst legal programs in the U.S., Golden Gate Law School (http://news.yahoo.com/gulags-10-worst-aba-accredited-law-schools-062013031.html). The school which she teaches at, Lamar University, isn't even ranked by US News and World Report. However you spin it, this person is not a well-known or credible academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has been edited, and vandalised in part several times to question the subject notability. The main references that prove her notability have been removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Who are all these people coming to comment at this article? Is this person controversial or something? This is a minor academic at a small university. She seems to meet notability criteria - which really is not so difficult to do because a person does not need to be well known, credible, or from a good school to get an article. Lots of new users seem to be coming to this discussion to talk about her - if she is so insignificant then who is this crowd? I just reverted someone's removal of a lot of sourced information, and the edit summary said that they were removing unsourced information. Some people are coming here with an agenda.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Comment A lot of the material was sourced but did not support the underlying statement. I have modified the language in the page to ensure accuracy and consistency with the source document.  Interestingly, when you peel away the self-boasting, you see the profile of a mediocre professor with shoddy academic credentials.  It's not surprising so many people are in support of its deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is extremely surprising that you and so many other people have intense interest in a mediocre professor with shoddy academic credentials. Usually unknown people do not draw a crowd. How did you find out about this deletion discussion?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * On the basis of the subject's controversial public comments. Most of those who are commenting are likely individuals who heard those comments, googled her, found this discussion and therefore found it interesting to contribute to.  Myself included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: We have articles with 1,000 views a day that need a lot of attention. It is wasteful for us to spend time trying to salvage an article with five views a day that needs a thorough culling, trimming and re-write. Based on the view statistics spiking after the AfD, I would surmise it's been read by more Wikipedians than actual readers. We could argue that the article merely needs to be improved, but the only editor likely to take an interest is the person themselves and those with a close connection. If someone wants the article kept, the strongest argument would be to demonstrate the article will be maintained to exceptional standards without absorbing the community's resources on an article of marginal value. Corporate 15:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well of course WP:Other stuff exists. However this argument is not grounded in any policy or guidelines I'm aware of. This is not valid AfD criteria. - Rushyo  {{sup|Talk}}  10:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sorenaaryamanesh#Sanaz_Alasti, there is every indication to believe that the user profile Sorenaaryamanesh is the subject herself, and therefore all comments from that user should be treated with that possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is equally offensive for someone to use Wikipedia as a personal resume or promotion as it is for someone to use Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta or viewpoint. Corporate 20:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per sources presented by User:Bluerasberry. A low quality article is not grounds for deletion under WP:GNG. Rather, we should seek to improve the article with the sources available. Notability does not require you to be a particular grade of expert. You can be notable for being particularly bad at your field, even. There is some serious edit warring in this article preventing it from being edited helpfully and I feel it would be productive to give it a chance to grow constructively, then it might allay many of the concerns presented. NYT and Examiner is a good start, we can always re-propose it for deletion later if nothing comes out of it. - Rushyo  {{sup|Talk}}  12:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am familiar with Sanaz Alasti’s work through my own collaboration with the ACLU in California. The ACLU is challenging the death penalty…as is Alasti.  The death penalty is very controversial---particularly in California and Texas---the two largest death rows in the country.  The ACLU is very controversial and is truly hated by certain segments of society.  Have either of the anonymous complainants had any editing input on this article?  The photo (rather frivolous) was reportedly posted by someone attempting to undermine the seriousness of the subject.  Any serious consideration of this deletion attempt would include some background work…contacting N. Minsker, head of ACLU for Northern California or any of the other sources cited by Alasti.  I have and she is very well respected.  This deletion attempt is obviously political or personal or both.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divisionsymbol (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read what qualifies as notable on Wikipedia. We do not subscribe to an arbitrary, subjective measure but have policies based around reliable sources which can be verified. If you believe the article should not be deleted on those grounds then you'd have a stronger argument. - Rushyo  {{sup|Talk}}  11:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The argument for deletion is based on the subject lack of significance, but I believe she is notable: The subject has been interviewed in various media discussing her expert views on legal studies and criminology. Here are examples:

Interview in the New Yorker:
 * {{cite web |url= http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/02/a-separation-iran-law.html

Iranshahr Magazine, published on November 25, 2011, which discussed the violence and discrimination against women. The subject picture has featured on the cover of the magazine:
 * {{cite web |url= http://www.iranshahrweekly.com/2012/01/iranshahr-weekly-issu-no-11.html

Interview in the Examiner:
 * {{cite web |url= http://theexaminer.com/stories/news/lu-faculty-member-presenting-nato-seminar-sicily

A part of her speech:
 * {{cite web |url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H623TUJhsbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.39.103 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sanaz Alasti delivered an impressive public lecture on the death penalty in western nations and in the Muslim majority world at Harvard Law School in 2011. I am not sure why her critics keep complaining that she teaches at a less prestigious university (Lamar University) and thus in their view does not deserve an entry. There are many scholars at second and third-tier universities who are on occasion making more noteworthy contributions in certain fields than people at the elite institutions. It is also not true the claim that "Typically, international law texts and criminal law texts are published by established institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, etc." Though I have published myself with Cambridge University Press, many star Harvard Law faculty have published numerous texts with far less prestigious publishers. If Wikipedia desires to reinforce academic snobbery, by all means cut Alasti's entry.  But having witnessed her make a fine contribution to pressing debates at Harvard Law School, I would be very disappointed if Wikipedia caved into a cruel campaign against a young scholar who most certainly merits having a modest entry at your website.  John Trumpbour, Research Director, Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.47.2 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the opponents that she is a young scholar, but despite her age, the subject has unique skills for her field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster.Allison (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject doesn't appear to pass any criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC (or WP:ANYBIO). That leaves us with WP:GNG and the only independent reliable sources are the ones immediately above posted by IP 72.86.39.103 (New Yorker and Examiner mainly). My issue here is this is an academic and an author, yet can't meet those notability guidelines. We are trying to squeak an academic author under the GNG wire with a few sources that in total are not terribly strong. I couldn't even tell you why they are notable other than being from Iran and having a PhD (the book itself doesn't have multiple independent reviews per WP:AUTHOR). Others above have said she is notable for her views on the Death Penalty, or her controversial views (unstated what), but none of the provided sources really get into that, so it can't be verified. She seems to be a visible professional, and may be notable for Wikipedia someday, but doesn't seem to be there today, based on the available sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The subject is probably notable. We should add more sources rather than delete the article. Some comments are made in bad faith. we should try our best to help the project. The subject passes at least one or two criteria listed in WP:ACADEMIC.Her research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. The subject has been very active in the movement for worldwide abolition of capital punishment. She is a regular speaker at conferences and seminars (in US. Iran and Europe) to bring worldwide attention to abolition of the death penalty.  Here I found a sample of her lectures:

lecture at Harvard law school: *{{cite web |url= http://eventful.com/cambridge_ma/events/wrong-capital-punishment-contemporary-practice-/E0-001-038087688-5

Chair of the session at the American Society of Criminology meeting: *{{cite web |url= http://convention2.allacademic.com/one/asc/asc12/index.php?click_key=1&cmd=Multi+Search+Load+Person&people_id=3032613&PHPSESSID=ktmv4q0bflm3k4osm4se0kpks3

lecture on juvenile death penalty at the Policy Studies Organization: *{{cite web |url= http://domes.uwm.edu/proposals.html

Invitee faculty at NATO school seminar in Italy: *{{cite web |url= http://www.isisc.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158:opening-of-the-2012-seminar-on-sharia-law-and-military-operations-&catid=3:newsflash&Itemid=89


 * {{cite web |url= http://www.isisc.org/portal/attachments/article/158/Program%20Shari'a%202012%20-%20October%2031.pdf

lecture in Virginia: *{{cite web |url= http://mehrganfoundation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=156

— Preceding unsigned comment added by US Academia (talk • contribs)


 * None of these accomplishments are listed in WP:SCHOLAR as being notable. None of these sources meet the requirements of WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am suspect of the votes above by US Academia, Sorenaaryamanesh, 72.86.39.103 - they all repeat the same syntax error in the cite template, it is like the fingerprint of the same person. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep please look at the history of edition in her page, after December 3 some people came to her page to Vandalised. Anyway she is excellence in her career, she had a great lecture in Harward Univeristy in 2011 and her books published by credible publisher such as Vandeplas in Flordia and Mizan in Iran. She wrote two books in English and her translations are three different ones, look at the refrences 11 & 13 for her translations. She also has more translations and I found them in the following link which is a famous persian website.
 * {{cite web |url=http://www.adinehbook.com/gp/search/240-1779682-9287306?search-alias=books&field-keywords=%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B2+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C

comment added by hoveyathoveyat 21:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply translating books does not make a person notable. See WP:AUTHOR. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Green Cardamom, all of the recent requests to keep repeat the same English mistakes that seems typical of a non-native speaker like the subject. All of them are also from new wikipedia users who have only commented on this particular subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Blue Rasberry, Some people are coming here with an agenda. They are not here to edit and improve the projects, they are here to defame and attack specific articles. If you check the contribution of Kabirat, 62.177.153.18 and 83.117.158.247, they are just interested in editing articles on Sanaz Alasti, Lily Mazahery and  Amir-Abbas Fakhravar. Their attempt is obviously political.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorenaaryamanesh - are you accusing me of making defamatory edits for political purposes? If so, such attacks are themselves defamatory and wholly untrue.  My edits to Fakhravar were made after noticing that like your subject profile, his subject profile was replete with unsource boasting.  Needless to say, the article was already under review at that point from being written from one POW since Fakhravar was the sole author of his wikipage.  For Lily Mazahery, her original wiki was created before she was found guilty by a court of law for abusing precisely the human rights victims she gained notoriety for.  On that basis the changes to her page were supported by the DC Court judgement, which if you read here completely support the edits that were made: http://www.dcbar.org/download.cfml?filename=for_lawyers/ethics/discipline/pdf/hearing_committee/HCLilyMazahery21709etal.  Ms. Alasti - excuse me Sorena - if you intend to attack other wikipedia editors for their edits, please ensure you have a proper basis for your defamatory remarks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Kabirat - Why you are only interested in editing those three profiles?Sorenaaryamanesh (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I was drawn attention to Alasti's false profile after she made public discriminatory remarks regarding Palestinians. At that point, the entirety of her wikiprofile had been created by Fakhravar, and almost all of it written from a subjective point of view.  So naturally, after editing Alasti's profile to make it more objective, I noticed that Fakhravar's own profile suffered from the same deficiencies since it had been exclusively written by him.  Indeed, it had been tagged by Wikipedia supervisors for precisely that problem.  So I made edits to correct that mistake.  Similarly with Mazahery, her profile suffered from the same deficiencies which are obvious when you compare her profile with the decision from the DC Bar which I have linked to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia is not for personal vendetta!


 * Comment This is not a personal vendetta Ms. Alasti, this is for correcting articles that clearly had a particular POV and which do not objectively profile the subject. There is no question that the original version of all the articles that have been edited were written by the subject or their colleagues without adequate sources, or bloating otherwise mundane accomplishments.  Wikipedia is not a place for promoting one's resume.


 * Comment Some people try to vandalised her page, Kabirat and 83.117.158.247 are those two people, they even change her origianal photo to a very personal image which was in her facebook page. comment added by hoveyathoveyat 9:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, these warring sockpuppets have created quite a mess for the closing admin to wade through, both here and in the article itself. Regardless, she appears to clearly not pass WP:PROF, and all we have towards WP:GNG is being quoted in a movie review and some local-newspaper talk announcement. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep She is excellence in her career, she had a great lecture in Harward Univeristy in 2011 and her books published by credible publisher such as Vandeplas in Flordia and Mizan in Iran. She wrote two books in English and her translations are three different ones.The subject has been very active in the movement for worldwide abolition of capital punishment. She is a regular speaker at conferences and seminars (in US. Iran and Europe) to bring worldwide attention to abolition of the death penalty. Here I found a sample of her lectures:

lecture at Harvard law school: *{{cite web |url= http://eventful.com/cambridge_ma/events/wrong-capital-punishment-contemporary-practice-/E0-001-038087688-5

Chair of the session at the American Society of Criminology meeting: *{{cite web |url= http://convention2.allacademic.com/one/asc/asc12/index.php?click_key=1&cmd=Multi+Search+Load+Person&people_id=3032613&PHPSESSID=ktmv4q0bflm3k4osm4se0kpks3

lecture on juvenile death penalty at the Policy Studies Organization: *{{cite web |url= http://domes.uwm.edu/proposals.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir hastibakhsh (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * None of these accomplishments are listed in WP:SCHOLAR as being notable. None of these sources meet the requirements of WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sanaz Alasti was a stellar research fellow at Harvard. Many colleagues at Harvard Law School will testify that she enlivened the global debate on the death penalty by bringing an international comparative perspective to the issues. Alida castillo 21:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alida castillo (talk • contribs)
 * Being a visiting fellow is not one of the criteria listed at WP:SCHOLAR. This discussion hinges on Sanaz Alasti meeting one of those criteria. It is how Wikipedia determines if an academic person is notable or not. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2012 (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.