Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadi Amin


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Shadi Amin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails too meet Notability (people) criteria. All references are somehow connected to the person. No indication of importance of documentary films metioned. The award is not notable as well. Pahlevun (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep subject has coverage... it's not in the article. Also, notabilty does not depend on 3Rd party coverage necessarily. She is notable who being an LGBT scholar. I can add more later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as although Books found a few links, there's nothing to suggest better unless it's mainly in Arabic & Farsi but it's unlikely. SwisterTwister   talk  06:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, subject fails general notability guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  22:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I added some sources and I'm lucky my daughter is taking Turkish, since there were several from Turkey. There are more in Farsi (?) that I won't even try messing with (and didn't add) as I don't know anyone who can help right now. I suspect there's more in German. She's written about in scholarly texts about Iran. Her documentary won an award, and how do you know that the award from IWSF is not notable? Just curious about notability standards for awards on Wiki. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recent edits and adding sources. Now we need to make sure that it makes it aligned with Notability (people), which needs "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". We can see multiple sources in the article, so we need to check them being secondary, independent and reliable. Coverage is also very important, as it can be read in the guideline: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".

Reviewing the first source, The Struggle for Iran (which I suppose is independent and reliable), we need to know how much the subject is covered. I couldn't find the name in google books search, however It may go wrong. Regarding that you are the editor who adds it, I ask you to quote it to see how much the subject is covered.

For the second source, Alternatif Siyaset (in Turkish), I really can't assess the coverage. I also ask about reliability.

Justice for Iran, is not independent of the subject, so it does not prove notability.

The book Islam and Democracy in Iran: Eshkevari and the Quest for Reform, is a reliable source about Hasan Yousefi Eshkevari. Since I have no access to the book and failed to search it, I ask you to quote it. From what I guess, the passage may be about Eshkevari's speech at Iran After the Elections conference, which was on 2000, not in the 1980s, as it is written in the article. Anyway if I'm true on this case, this is a mention in passing and very trivial.

The Erasing 76 Crimes, being referenced twice, mentions the subject, but does not speak "about" the subject. I also doubt reliability. It is a blog and it may violate WP:BLOGS.

Reliable Frankfurter Allgemeine Rhein-Main (in German) mentions her name 3 times and Ali Sadrzadeh 4 times. I can't assess coverage.

Hurriyet (in Turkish) seems a short interview to me.

Middle East Eye only mentions a tweet and Women's eNews Inc only mentions her name. There is nohing "about" her to prove notability.

From what I can see, she is an "active" activist, but has not done anything special to make her notable. There are sources "mentioning" the subject, but I don't see enough "in-depth content about" the subject. With this number of trivial and dependent/unreliable sources in the article, we may face masking the lack of notability. I don't wonder that the article is an Orphan since December 2013, there are maybe thousands of Iranian activists like her. Pahlevun (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC) ---There is no source except two Youtube links and one Justice For Iran source, not independent of the subject. If the films are important, there should deep coverage in several indipendent secondary sources. Pahlevun (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know Persian and I couldn't find better sources than what you have added. Sources only mention her name, and are less reliable. If we want to prove notability with the films, there should be something to align with WP:FILMMAKER:
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Comment Considering that she is the subject of interviews in multiple languages and countries, that's a good indication of notability. She's mentioned in published sources, both print and digital and worked with Amnesty International. She has enough coverage for GNG, esp as academic. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment 2 Sorry... forgot to add that the German, Swedish and Turkish coverage is all independent...not connected to her at all. The books are published by reliable sources. If you're searching in the US, they should pop up. Try WorldCat if you're stuck. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have flagged referencing problems in the article. Above, I asked you to quote two of the sources you added (The Struggle for Iran and Islam and Democracy in Iran), and I already explained that why I see the part "Amin organized a protest in the 1980s at a conference..." historically wrong, so I ask you again to please quote the part, as WP:BURDEN states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Pahlevun (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep Thank you for your attention to the article. Notable. (By the bye Colin Stewart who operates 76 crimes is not related to subject whatsoever, he works on human rights cases throughout the world. He has coordinated press on several high profile cases in the Caribbean). In addition to the other sources cited by Mega... Amin has been a featured speaker on panel discussions with International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association has been cited by the Times of India on events against sexual minorities in Iran and she was featured in an interview Trans[ition in Iran] in World Policy Journal. Diverse sources, multiple media markets, add up to substantive coverage regardless of whether the individual articles contain information solely about her. Depth of coverage has been shown. SusunW (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for your contributions, but I still think we are hving a Masking the lack of notability problem. Sources like The Guardian are independent and reliable, but we need the sources to cover the subject more deep. Pahlevun (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment So is ILGA, the Times of India, and World Policy Journal, or are you questioning those as well? SusunW (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am questioning the amount of coverage of the subject in the reliable, independent souces. The sources are trivial. quoting or mentioning someone is not enough to establish notability. Notability (people): "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial". I see no such thing. Pahlevun (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Depth of coverage is not the same thing as length of coverage. One can have 1,000s of pages of trivial fluff about a person which will never make them notable. A single statement in a reliable source that they are respected in their field carries more weight. A single sentence "Barack Obama is president of the United States" carries much more weight than a 200-page book detailing a party he attended when he was in college, though the book may be longer. If you have multiple independent sources indicating that the person is noteworthy, especially if it is wide coverage throughout several different continents, as it is in this case, those mentions add up to weight. This person's reputation is "weighty" enough that they were interviewed by the Guardian, the Times of India, The World Policy Journal and deemed an expert to lead a panel by one of the leading international LGBT organizations. You don't determine their notability. The sources do. The sources determined not just any person, but *this* person, was someone worthy to interview. SusunW (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Abundantly notable, nominator seems to misunderstand notability criteria and seems very invested in arguing with those who have pointed out that it should be kept. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you to only comment on content, not on the contributor. Pahlevun (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Currently, there are 22 sources in the article. 7 self-published (unreliable), 2 youtube links (unreliable), 1 goodreads link (unreliable), 1 primary source (for the prize with no indicaion of importance), 2 academic sources (trivial mentions), 1 reliable interview by Hurriyet, 1 interview with doubtful reliability (Alternatif Siyaset), 1 picture slideshow (Demotix; no usage for notability proof), 4 reliable sources trivially mentioning the subject, 2 blog posts with doubtful reliability.

So, there are only 7 sources able to contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Frankfurter Allgemeine Rhein-Main, Hurriyet Kelebek, Guardian, The Struggle for Iran published by The New York Review of Books, Islam and Democracy in Iran by I.B. Tauris, Women's eNews and Sogi News. According to WP:BASIC, we need to asses the coverage. I see all trivial mentions, except the interview with Hurriyet Kelebek. Pahlevun (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many more sources than your analysis cites and clearly the others here have not agreed with your evaluation of the sourcing. Since you had tagged nearly every single source cited in piece as unreliable, I have revisited each citation and added additional sourcing. The books do not require additional citations which you asked for, as anyone can access the ISBN numbers or the links I have added to her published works section. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Why all the sound and fury here, this seems like an easy call... Carrite (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment has more than adequately addressed the references. I agree that there is a significant depth of coverage--or I wouldn't have bothered adding anything to the article. If she was just "another activist, one of many" (to paraphrase), there would be mountains of Lesbian Human Rights activists from Iran in the press, and I'm not finding them. You don't make it into this many publications, especially scholarly books, (in five different languages) without being important or notable. You aren't called up for commentary on issues relating to your subject area if you are not important. Please stop debating this closed issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. My judgement is only based on WP:N, nothing else. Regarding th recent edits on the article, the subject may be a bare notability example.
 * Please stop quoting essays. They are not guidelines and carry no weight. It is you who keeps requesting more and more sources, though what is on the file shows very, very clearly that she is notable. No one is invited to contribute in a UN periodic review without credibility and years in the field. SusunW (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's close this. The article has benefited from the attention the AfD brought and it unquestionably passes GNG with all of the depth of coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:47, 28 September 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.