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 No consensus (default keep). For more details, see: AfD talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Amin Elahi[edit]

Hajj Amin Elahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was successfully deleted twice before: [1] so it may be an option to speedy delete per G4, and the closing admin might also want to salt it.No notability has been established: being a musician and composer of musical modes is not by itself notable: Wikipedia:Notability (music). The only references given are a paid obituary notice and a book written about the subject’s father: notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N for these reasons. Teleomatic (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The nominator has not been with WP very long and is misstating policy; the prior deletions were a speedy and for copyright violation, hardly a reason to justify deletion of the current article. This statement is prejudicial.--Octavian history (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Problematic References

After having found that the only reliable reference that this article cited does not support the claims made in the article (see my reply to Kevin Murray below), I thought it prudent to check the additional reference that author of the article added after I brought up this fact. I was not entirely surprised to find out that The Yaresan by M. Reza Hamzeh’ee, makes no mention of Hajj Amin Elahi whatsoever. In a short section on pages 160-161 concerning the importance of music in the meditation and mystical dancing of the Yaresan, there are 2 sentences that mention his father’s musicianship, but no reference to any of his children was found anywhere. I added a note to the article’s talk page noting this, and the appropriate notice to the article page as well.

I’m not sure what stake the editor has in the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, but it's my opinion that the means he or she are using to ensure it (including, as it appears below, using a IPsock to voice an opinion on this page) are entirely inappropriate. Teleomatic (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cant speedy as it was no deleted due to AfD in the past - just speedyed. Subject of article not notable. Tiddly-Tom 07:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This man was the greatest Kurdish musician in history. There are many article and books in which he is mentioned as one of the greatest masters of the Tanbur, but most of them are in Kurdish. It is very important to keep this article and would be an academic crime to delete it. All obituaries in the New York Times are paid for. Just because a person dies does not mean they get a free obituary. They are all paid for! Even the biggest names in history. This person lived outside the United States and not in New York, but was still in the New York Times. Plus the New York Times is used as a source and citation for the date of his death. This is not a paid add to sell an item, get your facts strait.

Also, just because the entire book is not about him is not a good reason to try to discredit the citation.--Octavian history (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please see my comment below to Kevin Murray about the During book that you cited – I think I have shown that it can be discredited as a source that establishes notability. As for what you said about New York Times obituaries, it simply isn’t true. Celebrities and well known public figures do not have paid obituaries – they are researched and written by respected journalists. The obituaries that appear in the paid death notices section can be written and submitted by anyone, and no fact checking is done. That is why paid obituaries, regardless of where they are published, are not valid as references for an encyclopedia. Teleomatic (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The book can NOT be discredited. It is a valid book that was published. The New York Times obituaries is valid to establish the date of death. You are wrong about public figures not having to pay. Public figures do not have to pay if an editorial is written up about them, but they absolutely do have to pay if they place a notice in the obituary section. Regardless of the above, a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's clear that I'm not denying that the book has been published, but it has been discredited as a valid reference for the claims you make in the article you wrote. I don’t think anyone will mind if you cite a paid obituary for the date of someone’s death. The criteria you mention (WP:CSD#A7) is used for speedy deletions of articles, which is not what is happening here. Lack of notability is what is being disputed here, and that needs to be demonstrated with some reliable sources, not just asserted. Teleomatic (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not excited about the flavor of the nomination. The nominator has not been with WP very long and is misstating policy; the prior deletions were a speedy and for copyright violation, hardly a reason to justify deletion of the current article. This statement is prejudicial. The nominator does not clarify how the article fails BIO, as one of the writers of BIO and N, I don't see an obvious failure as we have a significant source. That the primary focus of the source is the father does not mean that there isn't enough info to demonstrate notability of the son. I am impressed by Octavian's assertion that there are many foreign language sources, and assuming good faith this adds to the notability (these sources can be cited to establish notability). The NY Times is meaningless, but the Tanbur Society webpage gives a minor but apparently independent reference (more info on the Society would be compelling). It's a squeaker, but considering the weak nomination and two reasonable sources, I'd like to see us keep and improve the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment: I concede that G4 doesn't apply in this case and have adjusted my nomination accordingly. Since I initiated this AfD, and you justifiable raised the issue of a valid source being given, I took it upon my self to obtain the book by During and search for the relevant citations. What I found were a few sentences in an appendix:

[Ostad Elahi's sister] had several students, among whom Amin Elahi, Ostad's eldest son born in 1920, stood out. He too, practices music as a means of devotion and meditation, and plays the tanbour in a sweet and captivating manner with an inexhaustible inspiration. In addition, he plays the flute (ney) using the circulatory respiration technique... (p.144)

There is also a mention on p. 146 where Ostad Elahi is quoted as describing Haj Amin as a "good tanbour musician", while the younger brother of Haj Amin, who is cited in the book as being the one who inherited the gift of tanbour playing from his father, describes Haj Amin as simply "play[ing] in his own manner." There is no mention of the subject being a "master musician", a "prolific player" or a composer of "many new musical modes", which are the claims originally made in the article that cite this book as the source. The few lines dedicated to the musical ability of the subject in question give no indication that he was a notable musician, given the guidelines of WP:BIO, and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Teleomatic (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tele, I don't see how you can search for references without reading the whole book, page by page and line by line. I'm a little concerned about the intellectual independence of both the writer of the article and the nominator; is there something deeper here? While I applaud dedication, what would motivate an editor to go out and optain an obscure book in order to document an Afd. I think that there is more to the story and controversy smacks of notability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as obscure as you think: [2] especially if you spend a good portion of your day studying in a library that has it. While I admit I didn't read through the whole book, I welcome the writer of the article to point out anything I may have missed. Teleomatic (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note BTW, regardless of the above, a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain from voting. Comment: The Tanbur Society was deleted (via ((prod))) due to notability concerns. I've also restored the AfD template to the article, as the discussion has not run its course. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if we can verify notability via some other source besides the article's two external links (see my comments regarding both Hajj Amin Elahi, The Tanbur Society, and their respective web links at User talk:Johnyajohn#June_2007). The citation of the During book is helpful, although page numbers would be better. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I obtained the During book and the sentences mentioning Haj Amin Elahi do not establish notability. See my comment to User:Kevin Murray above. Teleomatic (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep is it can be better sourced, in needs rewriting to removed speculation if it cant be sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable musician, specially for those that know Eastern music. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to provide any references to back up your statement? Teleomatic (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sources that assert notability is a reason for deletion. Claims are not enough, it needs to be backed up or the article will be a stub. --neonwhite user page talk 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you keep mentioning is among the criteria for speedy deletion, which doesn't apply here. The subject's notability is in question, and as I'm sure you know, that is typically backed up by reliable references. Teleomatic (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag according to wikipedia rules

• "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.
• Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.[3]

Octavian history (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The above procedure only applies to WP:PROD deletion nominations, not to AfD or CSD. I've restored the tag and warned the user. My opinion on the article is, at present, Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No reliable sources to indicate the notability of the subject, per WP:MUSIC. To clarify, he's not notable merely because his father is notable, and, to consider him notable as a musician, we need evidence of non-trivial coverage of him or his performances in sources that pass WP:RS. Tevildo (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Like billions of other people, the person did not live in the United States nor speak English, so 99% of the text about him is in Kurdish. There is now two book citations, a website, New York Times obituaries and plus a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I love his music, a very big man.--Hasan075 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — Hasan075 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.blocked sockpuppet of Octavian history[reply]

• Keep Of course we should keep this. I have his tapes that were done in the middle east, and have a read a lot about him.--12.0.30.180 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that 12.0.30.180 had already been tagged as an IPsock of User:Johnyajohn concerning this very same article in June 2007 (link). See User talk:12.0.30.180 and, again, User talk:Johnyajohn#June_2007. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy is cool, great music.--208.125.21.226 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think that we need to be sensitive to the difficulty in obtaining western-grade verifyable sources for people in less-well-connected parts of the world. If there was a suspicion that this was some form of fake material then I'd want better proof, but what's there seems to circle around the subject enough to support the article as is. Ideally, more references can be found, but at this time it passes my smell test. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE PS-If you look at the TanburSociety.com website that is endorsing Hajj Amin Elahi’s music, you will notice that they are official members of the Recording Academy, which is the same as the Grammy Awards. The Grammy Awards are the most prestigious venue for musicians in the world. If it was not true, why on earth would an official Grammy member state "Hajj Amin was a master at the art of tanbur... His style which is known as the “Hajj-Amini” style has become universally accepted by many mainstream tanbur players...".--Octavian history (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete. This is why we need to rely on both verifiability and assuming good faith. As more and more majority world articles are created, with subjects that aren't automatically obviously notable (essentially having a lots of good English language reliable sources), we have to rely on articles being well referenced. It's all we really have (in the absence of gatekeeping "authorities" on subjects). This article has references now, asserting his notability, so it should stay. Evidently the sources did not assert the notability of this musician. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If I could read Kurdish, Farsi, or Arabic there'd be hundreds of sources. It seems English musicians get a Wikipedia article as soon as they get a record deal even if they go nowhere. Here is someone recognized as a master of a instrument and famous within a stateless nation and he doesn't seem important enough? I think it is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Kurdish We are the Kurdish people have been censorship for over 1000 years, not good! This man was the great muscian, why american was to take off Kurds? man born in 1919, we kurdi people know him. Please stop censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdestani (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC) — Kurdestani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Why on earth would anyone want to delete such a great muscian? Keep, keep, keep.--198.22.123.103 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:ILIKEIT. That's not a good enough reason to keep the article. Terraxos (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am a first time user and don't know too much about the subject, but there is obviously some major claims of excellence made by wiki users, the Grammy Awards member website, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicspotgreen (talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — Musicspotgreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete for lack of reliable sources. If this man really was as important as most of the people urging 'Keep!' say he is, something would be written about him in a reliable source somewhere, yet that does not seem to be the case. While he clearly has many fans who would like to see the article kept, reliable sources must be provided in order to do so; in its current form it fails Wikipedia's guideline for the inclusion of biographies. Terraxos (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note It turns out that there was an RFCU done on Octavian history, the author of this article, that revealed extensive use of sockpuppets on a wide range of articles: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. See also the suspected sockpuppets of Octavian history This explains some of the poorly reasoned 'Keep' votes on this page. Teleomatic (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.