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. The reliability of the sources found have not been succesfully defended. J04n(talk page) 11:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Habilian Association[edit]

Habilian Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:Notability. Nearly all sourcing is self-published from the Habilian Association and the rest comes from Iranian government-controlled media. No luck in finding any mentions in broader media or in neutral Iran-related books. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark This is no longer valid. There are tons of sources, and Iranian government controlled media counts as a media source, since they are the only media sources in Iran. How can an organization that is mentioned thousands of times by Iran supporting sites, and called a front by the two leading Iranian resistance groups be called non-notable? The usual reason for using non-notability is to hide persons or groups with terrorist associations in the shadows where they will not be subject to scrutiny. Mark Dankof and Kourush Ziabari were also removed for "non notability" despite being featured by Iranian and pro-Iranian media, which are certainly RS for these authors, even if their information is pure obvious Iranian propoganda straight out of the ministry of disinformation. The only obvious reason would be to try to hide their obvious associations with the Iran regime as the mainstream media so far has not noticed them, primarily pro-Israel bloggers have spotted them. Redhanker (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable precisely because it is supported primarily by Iranian government-controlled media and appears to be a part of a larger disinformation campaign, like Veterans Today which appears to be an outlet for Iranian media at least as part of its content. Web searching shows it is heavily referenced by pro-Iran pro-Palestine media outlets. All press in Iran is heavily government controlled, so its mention by Press TV and Fars news agencies makes it notable. Just because it hasn't been noted by western media doesn't mean nobody is noting it, and just because a media outlet is viewed by the west as pro-Iranian and anti-semtic and promoting conspiracy theories doesn't mean hundreds of websites amount to "nobody." There is a mountain of media and dis/information which is not noted by western media. Wikipedia covers a lot of media and individuals such as Veterans Today, Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer who spout pro-Iranian disinformation and anti-semitic conspiracy theories precisely because people object to them. That Iran is using this association to deflect blame from their own agents to allegedly western backed rebels is very notable because it obviously looks like an attempt at disinformation. People use WP as a resource to assess organizations such as the HA, and what their motive and objectives are. Redhanker (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is a clear violation of WP:No original research. If you are seeking to do original research, Wikipedia is not the right outlet. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this from the talk section establishing anti-regime sources in addition to the large number of Iranian government and pro-IRanian media promoting the Habilian Association. If you object to the agenda of the Habilian Association, it would be better to incorporate these sources which claim that the HA is a front for Iranian intelligence agencies than to delete the article. Redhanker (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 iran-interlink.org
 habilian.com
 negaheno.net - iranian website 

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NGO: "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." As far as I can tell, the only reliable source on this subject is a trivial mention in The National Interest which states that it is a fake human rights organization.[1] The article cites self-published primary sources and the state-controlled Iranian press which, in my opinion, does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Perhaps others will disagree. Location (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• remark PressTV and Fars are absolutely reliable sources on the government's obvious propoganda and cover story that it is a victims organization. Similarly, anti-regime sources are reliable sources on their position that is an intelligence front. Deleting obviously notable subjects is a common tactic to keep intelligence disinformation operations and groups/individuals with ties to terrorist or terrorist states out of the light is a common tactic. Just because PressTV, Fars and Mehr and Veterans Today put out obviously unreliable information does not make them un-notable, or an unreliable source on their stated intentions. Otherwise, you would not be able to use official government news sources such as Tass, Pravda, or even pro-west outlets like Fox or CIA publicaions. Neutral Point of View means presenting both views (Iran says it is victim NGO, anti-regime says it is intelligence front), not removing both views. Redhanker (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Did you really just indicate that the nomination of this article is a "tactic to keep intelligence disinformation operations and groups/individuals with ties to terrorist or terrorist states out of the light"? Are you suggesting that the nominator is some sort of Iranian operative sent to remove information from Wikipedia? Are you nuts?! Location (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not fair to judge an organization as being used by Iranian Intelligence agencies only because it is referenced by pro Iran Media outlets such as FNA and also due to reports mostly coming from the Mujahedin e Khalq Organization(MEK) and its American friends such as Iran Policy Committee (IPC). Well, the HA claims to be the representative of Iranian terror victims' families and it also claims those victims are assassinated by the MEK. So it is all clear why the Mujahedin e khalq is mutually accusing the Habilian Association of being run by the Iranian Intelligence services.Sinapoor (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Sinapoor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. So let's put aside the sources that are definitely or arguably propagandistic/fictional/tendentious. What reliable sources are there? I notice some promising footnotes, but when I click on them and look, they either mention this organization only fleetingly or don't mention it at all. However, I haven't clicked on all of them. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The blurb in The National Interest is all I have found: "Iran’s Habilian Society, a regime-sponsored group posing as a human-rights organization, published a U.S. Federal Appeals Court’s description of declassified American documents. One carried Iranian stories alleging MeK involvement in Karbala. Several state-run media reproduced the report." [2] I also found very brief mentions in two articles linked to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (i.e. [3], [4]), but neutrality concerns have me wondering if that could be considered a reliable source. Other than the primary source material, all other sources I have found are linked with Iran's state-controlled media. Location (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The National Interest articles though is an opinion piece, and by WP:NEWSORG, doesn't really fulfill WP:RS. Additionally, Raymond Tanter is a member of the Iran Policy Committee, which seeks to elevate the MEK as the primary opposition to the regime, which makes this source even more questionable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't know that. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was mentioned at WP:RSN, and I'll cross-post what I wrote there. There's no coverage at all of this organisation in the New York Times, BBC News or academic papers available via Google Scholar or my university's online multi-journal search. The university search engine also provides coverage of news archives, and only news sources which report this organisation's claims are the Iranian Fars news agency and the "Asia News Monitor" which appears to be an aggregation source (it may be repeating the Fars articles). A single BBC monitoring service report describes the association as "an organization formed to launch a campaign against the presence of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization MKO - in Iraq" in parentheses as part of a summary of an Iranian news report. As such, I don't think that WP:ORG is met. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not because it's not notable, or because it's not really what it claims to be, or because it's nefarious (one or more of which might be true), but simply because virtually nothing yet said about it (one way or another) has a reliable source, even after a protracted AfD debate. If there's much reliably sourced information later, an article can then be created. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Habilian association may be largely ignored by western mainstream press, but it is a big issue for the Iranian government and resistance groups. Perhaps this should be moved to the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Here is a list of western and official Iranian government news agencies and other widely published authors that have made note of the Habilian Association, with details in the collapsed section below. Even conspiracy theories get coverage in Wikipedia, but not a major Iranian NGO promoted heavily by every Iranian news outlet, and every Iranian-allied news outlet?

National Council of Resistance of IRan, Iran Policy Committee, stopfundamentalism.com, accessmylibrary.com, BBC CNN, Federation of American Scientists, Islamic Republic News Agency, Mehr News Agency, Veterans Today Mark Dankof, UglyTruthPodcast, Fars News Agency, Tehran Times, wikileaks, Kourosh Ziabari, Franklin Lamb, Stephen Lendman, iran-interlink.org, Irandidban, uprootedpalestinian, OpedNews, terror-victims.com, irannewpearlharbor, themadjewess.com, shoah.org.uk Redhanker (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark This is ridiculous. The organization is reported by an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY and news outlets of MULTIPLE Iranian resistance organizations. The only reason editors are calling it non-notable is because they are ignoring BBC and CNN, even though PRESSTV is the Iranian equivalent to CNN. The Iranian media calls CNN and NYT a western disinformation outlet, does that mean they can't be used as RS? PressTV is certainly RS for the existence of the organization as well as its contributors. This is not NPOV which is neutral point of view. It is ironic that supporters of Iran do not allow the use of any Iranian government agencies or media to establish notability or RS for notability. Press TV is independent of Habilian even if both are controlled by the same Iranian government and disinformation department. Look at the list of sources above again. Habilian is used as the main source of charges that the MEK is a terrorist organization by the Iranian government. You can't say that because the Iranian government and Press TV promote unreliable conspiracy theories and propoganda that it is not notable. Nazi Germany and even Obama and Bush are said to promote unbelievable propoganda, but you can't say that they are not notable. iran-interlink.org and Irandidban are both operated by the Iranian government. Redhanker (talk)

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.