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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Iranian American Communities

[edit]
Organization of Iranian American Communities (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 the notability guideline for organizations criteria. Since it is a front organization for the NCRI, I suggest a redirect to the latter. Pahlevun (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should have speedy deleted the article becuase the edits made since the creation were not "significant". Anyway, what you call a report from CNN, was posted by a user named "FreeIranNews" on iReport, and as it is asserted in the page, it is "not verified by CNN". So, this is a self-published source. I have carefully examined the sources, and I would like to shed light on the rest of the self-published/unreliable sources, which include:
  • Two links from ncr-iran.org (Official website of the NCRI, for which this organization serves as a front)
  • iacnorcal.com (Official website of the 'Iranian American Community of Northern California', another NCRI front)
  • mojahedin.org (Official website of the MEK, the parent organization of the NCRI)
  • iranfreedom.org (Closely associated with the MEK and NCRI)
  • deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com (Yes, a blog)
  • adventuresindevelopment.com (Another blog)
  • Seven statements by the organization itself were used as a source, which were linked on prnewswire.com, highbeam.com, eventbrite.com, marketwatch.com and ssuchronicle.com
  • cafebabel.co.uk link says "This article has not been vetted by an editor at Paris HQ", making it a blog post like CNN iReport

—Pahlevun (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the speedy deletion, adding or removing a source citation is always a significant edit.
I note, Pahlevun that you several times refer to the OIAC as a front. This may well be true, but is there a citable source that says so? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that self-published statements by anj organization expressing its own views are generally considered proper, even preferred, sources for those views. And of course such sources can be used for basic factual detail, such as the date of founding, current officers, location, etc of an organization. Of course they do not contribute to notability in any way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NCRI runs many front and shell organizations, some of them are listed here with a reliable source. Moreover, there are other sources designating them as such, like this report by Eli Clifton or this one by Al-Monitor that calls it "NCRI-linked", with an office "located right next door to the NCRI office". Even the source used in the article, which is published by NBC, doubts that this organization is non-profit, because it "doesn’t appear in a federal database". Anyway, this article seems a mean of promotion to me, which justifies the excessive citations used. Pahlevun (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:. Both are examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement and thus not enough to establish notability. Pahlevun (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'm going to apply the criteria mentioned at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria to prove that none of the sources establish notability:

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
cafebabel.co.uk Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 This is a blog post, it says "This article has not been vetted by an editor at Paris HQ"
nbcsandiego.com Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY 1
iReport Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Posted by a user named "FreeIranNews", not verified by the CNN
nonprofitfacts.com Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN 0 "NonProfitFacts.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk."
iacnorcal.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Official website of the 'Iranian American Community of Northern California', another NCRI front
thehill.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 0 Posted on Blog section
ncr-iran.org Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Official website of the NCRI
israelnationalnews.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY 0
marketwatch.com Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Press release
adventuresindevelopment.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 0
ssuchronicle.com Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Press release
deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 0
prnewswire.com Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Press release
mojahedin.org Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Official website of the NCRI parent organization
highbeam.com Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Press release
eventbrite.com Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Press release
iranfreedom.org Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 0 Website belongs to the NCRI
yahoo.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY 0
Total qualifying sources 1 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

These were the sources used in this version. The sources broght out by E.M.Gregory:

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
voanews.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY 0 The article is covering the speeches made by U.S. Senators and is not about the organization
usnews.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY 0 Trivial mention

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be a multiple of such qualifying sources. And those voting in favor of keeping the article have failed to provide such sources, as my investigation shows. Instead, I have provided three reliable sources that assert that OIAC is a front organization. —Pahlevun (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I assume that "consensus" is not achieved by popular vote, but rather through discussions. Users who support keeping the article, have only made arguments that are discouraged in deletion discussions (except E.M.Gregory), failing to show how it meets the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria. I have assessed notability requirements above, suggesting that it does not meet the criteria. No one has commented on the assessment, yet those voting keep believe the subject is notable. How can you justify that? Pahlevun (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk: Would you please name the references that support the gng? Pahlevun (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment was clear enough. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk:. Then explaining how "an accumulation of lesser mentions" can establish notability would enlighten me, because I can see that significant coverage in multiple sources is the criteria. Pahlevun (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff5102: I see. But Trivial mentions are insufficient to establish that topic's notability. Can you find sources with significant depth of coverage? Pahlevun (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OIAC was credited as organizer. That is not trivial.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff5102: The rally, organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, highlighted human rights abuses... With all due respect, this single mention is trivial (just like the example here: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.), and is not even included the body, but rather is used as a footer for the image. Pahlevun (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your explanation is invalid. This is not about some trivia concerning a politician; this is about the organizer of the event that is the topic of the article. Again, that is not trivial.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability: "...it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." Pahlevun (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The disputed fragment is about an event that is mentioned IN an article. Thus, your appeal to Wikipedia:Notability fails. Jeff5102 (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2018 (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