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. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf Online Organization (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)

1. notability due to lack of independent WP:RS 2. lack of coherent topic and other issues that can't be fixed due to 1.Widefox; talk 06:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources both independent and reliable to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG: 1 (a primary) makes no claim for organisation name, but instead claims "IIC" or "ISP" or "individuals" in the year 2000, one year after the article's unsourced claim of organisation founding date - this is contradictory or at least too scantily covered by its own primary source(s) to verify the organisation name. The further reading book added in response to this AfD itself claims to be collection of wikipedia (etc) WP:CIRCULAR. After I went through a lot of the sources, I marked how they either don't back the statement claimed, contradict, and/or are primary. Where are the WP:RS? We shouldn't have an article without substantial secondary coverage. This article is WP:ADVOCACY. Widefox; talk 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per first AfD. In fact 07:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reason (in particular on the independent RS needed for notability), this is not a WP:VOTE. Widefox;talk 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the first AfD was not a "keep", it was a "no consensus", which, while it results in the article not being deleted, it is not the same. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. In fact 07:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I think expanding on your vote is even more important after listing at ARS. Without would fuel the sentiment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination) that ARS is being misused, and is disruptive. Widefox; talk 11:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. In fact 07:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Lots of independent RS is available in the article. I would like to know what the nominator means about "lack of RS" and "lack of coherent topic ...". It's the second Afd and i think at least more valid and clear reasons to delete should be considered than before. Furthermore, there is book in the "Further reading" section which shows it's notable enough. ●Mehran ^Debate●

Please can you say which one/ones (being reliable and independent - e.g. [1] is not independent per Goodvac's analysis in the previous AfD) ? (I fleshed out coherency problem of e.g. organisation name above.) Widefox; talk 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Goodvac in AfD1. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what did he saw that you are agreeing with? Dream Focus 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I said last time, [2] is notable coverage. Read it through instead of skimming over it, and it is clearly about the organization, that what he is interviewed about and talking about. All the sources found previously, taken as a whole, do indicate notability. Dream Focus 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

coverage yes - is it the only one? and it is not independent per Goodvac (a follow up article due to a complaint letter) so doesn't help notability. Also seems short of "significant coverage"? just news. Widefox; talk 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interviewing the guy about his organization is significant coverage. Why would it matter if they got the idea to interview him based on a letter or not? Dream Focus 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is not independent per Goodvac. What little info we have comes from him and is not deep - no founding date, no founder, no board members, location, charity no. per WP:ORG Primary criteria "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." so it isn't enough even if we agreed it is independent. Despite falling short of WP:ORGDEPTH, we have an article with all these facts in, which is not covered by a single independent RS. Widefox; talk 09:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

taking the alternative criteria WP:NONPROFIT, "multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources" - no, yes, no, yes. Widefox; talk 09:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is independent, I don't care what Goodvac said in the AFD least year. In addition to what I've said before, Mehran last time found proof that the organize is influential, ample sources providing that. Dream Focus 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator is not neutral at all, as he deleted this article from the disambiguation page in here. In fact 04:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem like they did that on purpose, and then tried to cover it up pretending they were up to something else. Anyway, please expand on why you think the article should be kept, copy pasting over what you said last time perhaps if you don't want to bother having the same exact discussion over again. Dream Focus 05:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact: Instead of an WP:Ad hominem attack on me, neither me nor Jimbo [3] has a horse in this race. This WP:ADVOCACY has no place here. Dream Focus you should know better and WP:AGF. Before descending further, I like it is not a strong argument to keep, influential or not, the burden to provide a couple of WP:RS is not met. Widefox; talk 12:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dream Focus.

Anyways, I just found this. In fact 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that source is UGC so is irrelevant. Widefox; talk 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• an article in Ettela'at newspaper

• http://www.criticalissuesforum.org/PROJECTS2011/CN_Beijing/benchmark_1.pdf

• http://registeredindie-com.doodlekit.com/media/AA/AI/registeredindie-com/downloads/54031/Iranian_Directory_-_Politics___Nonprofits_-_011810.pdf

In fact 13:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• an article about Persian Gulf Online in Shargh Newspaper. In fact 13:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two main newspapers in Iran have talked about this NGO. So I believe it is notable. In fact 12:14, 25 December 2012 (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.