Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden Iran

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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Iran (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 criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) Pahlevun (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems notable. Was even reviewed by the NYT[1]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horse Eye Jack. That's still not enough to establish notability per WP:NFO criteria 1, which saysThe film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Find one more and I will withdraw nomination, or establish notability with general notability guideline, because it fails at the moment. Pahlevun (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:GNG so WP:NFILM is irrelevant... Also its not strictly speaking a “film.” Why don’t you think it passes GNG? We have feature pieces in multiple WP:RS. Of the NYT, WAPO, and Amnesty which are you arguing is not a reliable source? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet WP:GNG either, because two of the sources fail to qualify. Amnesty International link is a press release (not a report), and is not a "Significant coverage", but a trivial mention, per WP:GNG. Moreover, washingtonpost.com link is not a piece by The Washington Post, it is transcript of an interview with the director of this show and is published in "PAID PROGRAMMING" section ("Sponsored Discussion Archive: This forum offers sponsors a platform to discuss issues, new products, company information and other topics") and includes such text such as Forbidden Iran airs Thursday, Jan. 8 at 9 p.m. ET (check local listings). So, it does not qualify as a source to establish notability, because it is not only paid material, but also is not independent of the subject (work produced by a person affiliated with this subject) per WP:GNG. Note that WP:GNG saysIf a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Pahlevun (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this Amnesty Report go into enough detail for you [2]? It was also broadcast as part of PBS’s Frontline television program after it premiered in Europe, thats *wide* exposure. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty is still a trivial mention. Not every footage used in Frontline is notable, see here. Pahlevun (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that new one is *not* a trivial mention. It wasn’t footage used in Frontline btw, it was broadcast in its entirety as an episode of Frontline/World. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. The Amnesty coverage (both sources) constitutes fairly trivial coverage specifically of Arzhang Davoodi, who is apparently one of several interviewees in the documentary. In additional to Amnesty, I found coverage in:

• Iran Human Rights Monitor: [3]
• UNHCR: [4]
• IWP: [5]

For coverage not about Davoodi, I found:

• Short review in New York Magazine: [6]
• Coverage in Brown Daily Herald: [7]
• Minor coverage in Payvand Iran News: [8]

I find this, in conjunction with the NYT full-length review, sufficient for GNG. userdude 03:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is not necessary, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2020 (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.