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. Goodvac's arguments are very strong, but there is sufficient disagreement about whether the sources actually all fail GNG to put this AfD squarely in "no consensus" territory. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No returns to support independent wikipedia notability that raises above WP:ORG or for which there is significant coverage in independent externals to a level that raises above the WP:GNG - Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. In fact ( contact ) 09:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —In fact ( contact ) 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge to Persian Gulf naming dispute. The significance of this group appears to be as a group of Iranians, many living outside Iran, who are trying to preserve and promote the use of the term "Persian Gulf". As such, their notability is basically in connection with the naming dispute. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the current page redirects to there? Mehran ^Debate 05:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, a merge would imply a redirect of the current title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with merging, as this organization is notable enough to have its own article. Regards, In fact ( contact ) 10:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I oppose a merge, as nothing about this organization is known through significant, independent reliable sources. Goodvac (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough for Wikipedia -- Marmoulak (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The organization's website ranks No.7 when the word Persian Gulf is searched in Google. Just to remind you that It used to rank the second at the time which the website was not down. In fact ( contact ) 10:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh??!! What are you talking about?? it doesn't even rank in the top 100 for me. Google factors in the number of times you have visited a website when ranking it! just because you see it in the first page of a google search, that doesn't mean others will see it as well; apparently you have been visiting this website a lot! And since when notability is measured by the so-called google search "rank"??!! Have you ever read Wikipedia's guidelines on notablilty?! By the way, Alexa ranks the website at 407,000 -- Marmoulak (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/04/persian-gulf-organization/ is significant coverage of the organization. If someone who knows their language could search for it, perhaps they'd find more results. Dream Focus 19:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• greenprophet.com is not notable itself, let alone having the ability to give notability by briefly mentioning another website! -- Marmoulak (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is notable. Read their about page. "Green Prophet has been featured on the world’s most influential media outlets including Al Jazeera, AOL News, TIME Magazine, the NY Times and dozens more, linking us as the definitive source of green news for the Middle East and North Africa region." And they only allow content for their staff writers so they are a reliable source. Dream Focus 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• you seem to have a bad habit of basing your arguments on self-published questionable sources! Green Prophet claims to be somewhat notable, but there is no evidence of it being so. Even if we assume that Green Prophet is remotely notable, its brief mention of this organization by no means gives it any kind of notability. Persian Gulf Organization website does not meet any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Once again, your total lack of regard for Wikipedia's clear rules and guidelines is sad and unfortunate -- Marmoulak (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Green Prophet is notable, based on the coverage it gets from major news sources. Its founder and main writer also contributes articles to the Huffington Post. Dream Focus 13:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well known enough in Iranian community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have heard of it is not a reason for wikipedia to host an article about it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you search for its name in Arabic, and see if any newspapers or magazines have mentioned it? Dream Focus 13:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Searching in Persian website results in many links, for instance in this website , Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh (the advisor of this organization) is talking about it. In fact ( contact ) 10:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again another note from Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh about Persian Gulf Online Organization in this page. In fact ( contact ) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, promotion of a non-notable advocacy group; single source provided doesn't rise above the level of an incidental random reference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, This is not promotional or non-notable, you can check the references and see what websites has considered it. Mehran ^Debate 19:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources have considered this organization in detail. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• note the founder of the webpage Mohammad Ala- has been deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a simple webpage, but an Online Organization and an NGO. BTW, an organization's notabilty is not only based on its founder. In that case, notable Pejman Akbarzadeh is a member of this organization. In fact ( contact ) 10:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The organization is highly notable and well known for middle east people. Unfortunately there is unintentionally discrimination against such these articles, mostly from western users. Of course we can't expect the notability of NATO or WTO for this article, but I can list tens of organizations in west, that eastern people are completely unaware about them. We must keep in mind that English Wikipedia is an international one, not only for English-speaking people.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote essentially boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. What are the reliable sources that enable this organization to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I checked the article now, it contains enough independent reliable sources to meet WP:ORG. Aarash (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain which sources in the article meet WP:ORG#Primary criteria. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• greenprophet.com is both reliable and independent. The source's topic is PGO. It is focussing on the organization.
• The answer to your vote underneath: It is the source which has to be and of course is independent , not Daniel Pourkesali or his statement in the source. In fact ( contact ) 19:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The answer to your vote underneath about ghasedakonline.com. Although It has not mainly mentioned PGO, but this source has proved the notability of this organization by simply saying "The first". The first Online Organization regarding Persian Gulf is Persian Gulf Online Organization, as this independent reliable source has clearly mentioned. In fact ( contact ) 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, your assessment of these sources is utterly erroneous.

• The Green Prophet article is an interview of Daniel M. Pourkesali. The interview is focused on the use of the name "Persian Gulf", not on the Persian Gulf Organization. The organization is mentioned in passing. Even if it were not merely a trivial mention, this source would not establish notability because Pourkesali is affiliated with the organization and is not independent. We cannot use him as a gauge of the organization's notability.
• It does not matter where the content is hosted. Daniel Pourkesali wrote the article; therefore, he is the source. The source is therefore not independent.
• "The first site I came across was, The Persian Gulf Taskforce..." Saying that the word "first" establishes notability is ludicrous. Also, please don't misrepresent the source. The author said the Persian Gulf Taskforce was the "first site I came across". This does not mean the "first Online Organization regarding Persian Gulf".

Please reacquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My first answer to you before I go any further, Please read the article at least for one time, before making comments and voting; PGTF is another name of the PGO ( mentioned in the first line of the article) After doing this very first step, start talking about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, PLEASE. In fact ( contact ) 06:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• That sources says: "And while surfing the net I came across two sites, which I found to be very interesting.

The first site I came across was, The Persian Gulf Taskforce, http://www.persiangulfonline.org/index.htm, an organization who sole dedication is to preserving the correct name of the Persian Gulf. "

• As I have stated before, when the website was fully active, it used to be the 1st or the 2nd result for searching Persian Gulf. In fact ( contact ) 07:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The website has been down for more that 6 months, but still it ranks the 5th when searching Persian Gulf in Google. (Not considering image and news results, if you consider them as well, it ranks number 7) In fact ( contact ) 07:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any way, you are right, The source is not saying that The website is the first online organization regarding Persian Gulf.(my mistake, sorry.)

The source says: two websites was found regarding that matter. The first one is PGO/PGTF.

• But my mistake has got nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as you have mentioned above. In fact ( contact ) 08:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the sources in the article are passing mentions of the subject. Analyzing each source through the lens of the WP:GNG:
  • "The Arabian Gulf?" does not discuss the Persian Gulf Organization in depth. The only relevant content is: "The first site I came across was, The Persian Gulf Taskforce, http://www.persiangulfonline.org/index.htm, an organization who sole dedication is to preserving the correct name of the Persian Gulf." This passing mention does not establish notability.
  • "We Stand Corrected: Daniel Pourkesali From the Persian Gulf Organization On The Importance of Names" may well be reliable, as Dream Focus (talk · contribs) states above, but this source is not independent. The interviewee, Daniel Pourkesali, who is affiliated with the Persian Gulf Organization, states, "Persian Gulf Organization (PGO) is made of many volunteer individuals across the globe dedicated to the defense and preservation of the historic name of the Persian Gulf through monitoring of electronic and other published media and news articles." A statement from someone affiliated with the organization cannot be used to establish notability.
  • "An Iran we could love" consists of a reprinted letter, signed by "Professor Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Task Force" inter alios. This is a passing mention.
  • "„Die Kinder Adams sind aus einem Stoff gemacht“: Die iranische Zivilgesellschaft schützen" consists of a reprinted letter, signed by "Prof. Dr. Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Taskforce & Iran Heritage" inter alios. This is a passing mention.
  • "Statement by a Group of Iranian Anti-war Activists about Iran’s Presidential Elections"—see "An Iran we could love".
  • "Distorting the Name of the 'Persian Gulf' Continues"—whose author, Pejman Akbarzadeh, is "a member of 'Artists Without Frontiers' and the 'Persian Gulf Organization''s Rep. in Amsterdan and Tehran"—is a passing mention.
  • "Name of 'Persian Gulf' registered in 1,800 maps" is a forum post that links to an article by Pejman Akbarzadeh. Forums are not reliable, and the article by Pejman Akbarzadeh does not discuss the Persian Gulf Organization.
  • "Shahram Mostarshed" is a short biography of a member of the Persian Gulf Task Force. This does not constitute significant coverage, as nothing about the organization is discussed.
  • "British Airways recognizes the Persian Gulf" states, "Head of IIC's Persian Gulf Taskforce, Javad Fakherzadeh wrote British Airways and pointed out that the historically correct name of the waters is the Persian Gulf." This source is insignificant, not discussing the Taskforce in depth.
  • "CASMII Organization" lists the CASMII Advisory Board, including "Mr. Javad Fakharzadeh is founder and Board Member of Persian Gulf Online organization" and "Mr. Shahram Mostarshed is an anti-war activist who has been involved in several campaigns in the past decade, including Iranians for International Cooperation (IIC) and the Persian Gulf Task Force (PGTF)". These passing mentions do not establish notability.
  • "Sanctions as Warfare" is written by Daniel M Pourkesali, who is not independent of the organization.

In sum, there are no significant, independent reliable sources covering the Persian Gulf Online organization. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why did they use PGFT if it' not notable? Anyway, I will add more sources which explains more about PGFT, Thanks. Mehran ^Debate 03:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whom are you referring with "they"? Mere republishing and quoting of articles written by people associated with the organization does not establish notability. I will comment on the additional sources shortly, if I get to it today. Goodvac (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They" refers to the other sources that considered PGO and know it as a notable NGO, e.g. two of them wrote that PGO had sent some letters to Army News and British Airways. It shows that this is notable enough and some reliable sources used it in their news, if not they didn't use it in their articles. Mehran ^Debate 08:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That unreliable, non-independent sources report that this organization "sent some letters to Army News and British Airways" does not confer notability upon the organization. I can send some letters to Army News and British Airways and have it reported by unreliable sources. Does that make me notable? Your position is absurd. None of the sources directly discuss the organization. Goodvac (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on additional sources The sources added by Mehran (talk · contribs) are trivial mentions.
  • "Iran Heritage, Persian Gulf Online, and Iran Alliance 2008 Scholarship and Merit Awards" is a congratulatory message by Mohammad Ala and Javad Fakharzadeh, both of whom are affiliated with the Persian Gulf Organization. This source is not independent. Also, this article is used to source the first sentence of the article: "non-political, non-partisan and non-religious and non-governmental entity comprised of a network of volunteers across the globe dedicated to preserving and protecting the historical name of Persian Gulf". This is a glaring copyright violation, verbatim from the source.
  • "Persian Gulf Organization PGO Charity In Alhambra California" is an editable directory of charities—absolutely not reliable. Furthermore, the page states, "Our taskforce (PGTF) members maintain a close watch on ... any misuse of the only legal term for this body of water.... We have volunteer opportunities available. Please visit our website for more information" (my bolding). This is not an independent source, as it was written by the organization.
  • "حذف نام خلیج فارس در موسسه هارپركالینز لندن" is another passing mention.
  • "Pejman Akbarzadeh Official Website" is another passing mention. The focus of the page is on Pejman Akbarzadeh's life, not on the organization.

I firmly stand behind my position that this organization is not notable and the article should be deleted. Goodvac (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"حذف نام خلیج فارس در موسسه هارپركالینز لندن" is saying that PGO's actions regarding defending Persian Gulf's name about National Geography influenced The government of Iran to act accordingly. This organization's efforts as an NGO with the help of other organizations and people around the world brought a success into this topic. This was the summary of what that source has stated. This Online Organization is pretty much notable, indeed, as it has made the government of one country to react. In fact ( contact ) 09:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course it's notable enough as I said above. I respect Goodvac's opinion, but check the sources a little deeply. Another case is British Airways recognizes the Persian Gulf, it was said in this page that Head of IIC’s Persian Gulf Taskforce, Javad Fakherzadeh wrote British Airways and pointed out that the historically correct name of the waters is the Persian Gulf and going on: Two weeks later, British Airways acknowledged their mistake and provided written guarantees that their onboard displays would be corrected. You can also see this matter in the other sources. PGO has a very wide effects in Iran's government and British Airways and Army News, etc. and their reaction is considerable to name this organization "Notable". Mehran ^Debate 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the group has been quite active in Persian Gulf studies and also its website is full of information and maps. Why it should be deleted? Thanks.--Discodancer2000 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for retention. The article should be deleted simply because it fails the WP:GNG. Goodvac (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Some changes was done in the article and new sources with new information was added to the article. Mehran ^Debate 15:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent sources shows that PGO is completely notable in Iran and the government officially knows it as an effective organization in Persian Gulf related subjects. I'm searching for more events about it and will add them to the article. Fortunately there are many non-English reliable sources that talk about PGO and we can use them and I wasn't aware of them! Mehran ^Debate 17:53, 1 October 2011 (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.