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. The strength of Green Cardamom's argument is clear. Editors misunderstand several facts about the English Wikipedia and one of them is that sources much be verifiable. Verifiable does not mean sources have to be in English. This appears to be a case of cultural bias. I do not see a consensus to delete this article based on Wikipedia policies. v/r - TP 21:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrollah Hekmat[edit]

Nasrollah Hekmat (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)

This Person is not notable, i did a research on Google.com no notable source came up. P.s: All of the selected publications looks like a hoax, google some of them and you wont find even a single one. Foodie (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is the case, Can you please Update this article to make it look better and sync with whatever work he has done. Definitely we want to keep encyclopaedic articles on Wikipedia. For this case i am still not not sure if this article can pass GNG. --Foodie (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://iqna.ir/en/news_detail.php?ProdID=79974 http://www.sid.ir/en/ViewPaper.asp?ID=275759&vDate=SPRING-SUMMER%202012&vEnd=70&vJournal=JOURNAL+OF+ONTOLOGICAL+RESEARCHES&vNo=1&vStart=57&vVolume=1&vWriter=HEKMAT%20NASROLLAH http://oldenweb.sbu.ac.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.141.124 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — 109.162.141.124 (talk) 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, SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see now this is the same article mentioned by the SPA acct above. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
There's nothing in English, it's all in Farsi where he is quite notable in Iran per sources above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert at reading Google translations of Farsi, but as far as I can tell, these are a mixture of adverts (for book discussion), blogs, web news sources, 404 errors, and some legit write-ups on the subject, though again I cannot judge the level of any of these outlets. (That is, are they akin to NYT, or more like a local paper?) I take the observable fact that the subject has never published anything as a much more telling indicator, especially since he appears to write in English. For example, here is the abstract to his paper discussed above. Related to this, what would the claim to notability be? (Article currently lacks this.) Many of the sources you cite, e.g. this one, talk about a book he's written, but again nothing shows-up in WorldCat. Perhaps we should search under a different name? Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The sources are about the book since that is how we determine notability per AUTHOR #3 ("multiple reviews in reliable sources"). They sources are not adverts or blogs, for example [1] is the Iran Book News Agency, a known reliable source. [2] is a News Agency, [3] is a News Agency, [4] is a journal, and so on. The web site styles are typical of Iran, stuck in 1995, look at the institutions. WorldCat is an American institution - it's highly unlikely, almost impossible, that Iranian state libraries share data with the American-based OCLC. A search of "Iran" shows no results in the OCLC members list.[10] He has written a few things in English it seems, but his primary language is Farsi working in Iran. Also these sources are not complete, please do continue searching on his Farsi name I gave up after 300+ Google hits they just keep going. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not an expert on Iranian literature, so I'm not sure how to interpret "typical of Iran, stuck in 1995". My guess is that these news agencies are not the Iranian equivalents of NYT or other such outlets for which a published review of a book is conclusive proof of notability. The relationship between Iranian state libraries and WorldCat seems to be non sequitur support for the argument that we should not be surprised Hekmat's work doesn't appear in WorldCat. Yet, WorldCat lists books by Iranian authors both in their native language and in English and indeed shows that WP-notable Iranian authors like Gholam-Hossein Sa'edi or Bozorg Alavi have many hundreds of holdings, i.e. what we would expect as evidence for notability. So, one must ask why Hekmat's books don't appear there. I don't know the answer, but something like "anti-Iranian bias of the western publishing infrastructure" is probably not it. Google hits are irrelevant, so I'm not sure there's much use in discussing those. I'm going to retire from this thread now, but will be glad to switch positions if something conclusive can be found...I couldn't find it. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
-- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is defined by the sources, not by existence on other Wikipedia's. There are many reasons why people don't participate in other Wikipedia's that has nothing to do with notabilty. The only thing that would provide material guidance is if he did have a page on another Wikipedia and was deleted, we could look at the AfD and use any evidence found there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. But it would help if there were. Is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Interwiki links are viewable on every Wikipedia page, box on the lower left side says "languages", underneath "tools" and "print/export". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I presented reliable sources above. I spent a number of hours finding and formatting these sources. If this article is to be deleted, the participants here will need to explain why the sources presented do not count as significant coverage in multiple sources per WP:GNG. Nobody has done that. The sources cover the same sorts of activities we see English sources about someone in the news, and they do cover his work not just what he says about other people. You would like more sources from his University, you would like him to be "renowned in his field", you would like the sources to be in English -- me too, but according to WP:GNG, there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is how we determine notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable and meaningful are two different things. You may have answered your own question! Forget English sites, though, as I said, I have found quite a few which list notable or prominent Iranians in all fields. But I have not found anything meaningful in Persian sources either, which would make him notable, which, I think, speaks volumes, and I, too, spent quite some time looking for them, being conversant with the script. The coverage is minimal as is his output, which is why, I think, the sources cited here can be discounted. Notability would have ensured more and better results. Someone has already mentioned WorldCat. I didn't find anything at the Open Library site either, usually a good port of call to locate titles and authors in any language, particularly Oriental languages. No one is questioning his status as a professor, but plenty of articles have been deleted because the subject just held that title. So why should this one be kept! If the subject is supposed to be a prominent or notable philosopher. I'm afraid, I have yet to see any evidence of that. As for being a notable professor, such academics everywhere these days are expected to have published more than just a few articles and the odd book on their subject. Even here, his output by Oriental and international standards seems to be extremely limited.- Zananiri (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, multiple reliable sources have been found. It sounds like your delete vote is based on a higher bar of inclusion than WP:GNG. Notability for Wikipedia is not the same as "prominent" or "renowned". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree absolutely that one does not have to be prominent or renowned to have an article here, but even some semblance of notability requires a certain degree of recognition and I have to agree with Agricola44 about the SPA element in this article. WP:GNG cannot be assumed on the basis of what I have seen so far or what the subject has done to date.- Zananiri (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree but as I said, multiple reliable sources have been found that cover this topic in depth, per W:GNG. The subject has mainstream media recognition. Also, SPAs create a large portion of Wikipedia's new articles (see New Page Patrol or AfC), it's how Wikipedia gets a lot of its new content, SPA shouldn't prejudice (unless there are behavior issues like sock or whatever). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll have to leave it at that. What may seem to be in-depth to one person is academic. Agricola44 has made some pertinent points about WORLDCAT and the subject's total omission there. Nothing to do with the site being an American venture, in my view. I think that is a biased opinion, as other Iranian authors and academics are there, and here, too, I agree with Agricola44. I made my own observations about the Open Library. No one to date has seen fit to include him there either. Anyone could have done that. However, I am keeping an open mind and would change my own !vote immediately, if presented with irrefutable evidence about the subject's notability, and him not being just another teacher at a university. Going by what I have seen presented here so far, or seen through my own searches online, and given the subject's extremely low publishing output, I remain unconvinced. so like Agricola44 I, too, am retiring from this discussion, as we seem to be going around in circles.- Zananiri (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to a recent post by User:Randykitty, who I personally respect as an expert on these topics, WorldCat is not a reliable source for a number of reasons. It's unfortunately often relied on in AfD discussions and we need an essay describing its pitfalls, similar to the WP:GHITS essay. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, Green Cardamon. However, I think you are partially misinterpreting me. I do indeed think that WorldCat contains many errors and that being listed in it does not mean a great deal. Especially open access journals will often get a large number of hits in it, basically only meaning that a lot of libraries have included a link to the journal somewhere on their websites (and the journal being OA, that increases their coverage without it costing them a dime). However, if, in contrast, something is not even in WorldCat, that does suggest that something is not notable at all. On the other hand, this goes mainly for Western aurthors, because, as far as I know, WorldCat's coverage is more sketchy outside of Europe and North America, which may explain low holdings for someone publishing in Farsi. (I guess I'm not really being helpful here... ;-) I am not very familiar with Farsi publications, so I'm not going to !vote here, but I just wanted to clarify this point. --Randykitty (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2013 (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.
More