Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akram Pedramnia (2nd nomination)

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. After some time for investigation, we appear to have turned the corner on this to a weak consensus for notability. RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Pedramnia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. As an academic scholar she has zero impact on GS citations. See first AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - She has written and translated a number of books and is notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am tidying up the sources, which did not have their actual titles, nor dates, authors, etc. Of the sources in the article, The Globe and Mail is about her work. The BBC Persian News is in part about her work, partly about Nabokov and Lolita, and partly quotes from her - so the small part about her work can be considered. Publishing Perspectives also has a little about her work. The Asymptote source is actually on their blog, so less reliable than if it were in their journal - and it's fairly short anyway. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung is mainly an article by her, but includes a paragraph of information about her, so that is what I have named as the source. That's as far as I've got so far - I haven't yet looked at the Italian newspaper article. So far we have one reasonably long source, and 4 short ones. (As an aside, I am not sure where we would expect to find reviews of books in Persian that have been censored in Iran? I haven't tried searching using Persian names yet - now that I have two Persian titles of her own books, I will have a go.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG are the standards to judge this by rather than WP:ACADEMIC. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to hear back from RebeccaGreen before this AFD is closed. Suggest relisting in order to give her time to evaluate and search for RS. @RebeccaGreen: have you made any progress, and are you leaning towards keep or delete?4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow time for discussion of updated sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I have been away on a work trip without internet access. Now I'm back, I'll try to do more searching this weekend. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends and ubiquity (talk), thanks for your notes. I know there are lots to be mentioned in Akram Pedramnia page but it will be done soon. She is a writer and translator and one of the most famous novels is translated by her called Ulysses written by James Joyce. This translation is the only one done perfectly up to now. This translation is banned in Iran and she had to publish it somewhere outside Iran. It is done now. She is against censorship in Iran. I hope you understand the importance of her wiki page in English. Her Farsi page was under lots of misunderstandings which is clean now. I wish your ideas on keeping her page and removing deletion notes on top of the page. Best wishes for you all.Morteza Bemani (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP. If she were notable as a translator, I would expect to find reviews in literary journals and interviews, which I do not, and I have looked. I found her own discussion about her translation. "Better World Books is an online for-profit bookseller of used and new books" so their review of their own product is not independent. Likewise, "AbeBooks is an e-commerce global online marketplace with seven websites" that is a "subsidiary of Amazon" so their review is likewise not independent. Lots of scholars give lectures at various colleges and universities, so she fails the prof test. There are lots of Ghits about her, but they all seem to be social media and the non-independent sources of the type I've linked. She thus fails WP:NAUTHOR, and more generally WP:GNG. The writers of her article are no doubt well-meaning, and her translation of Ulysses might be a delight to read, but we are not a free web host for translators. I would not object to a relisting to allow another few days for others to find sources that I might not have found or that might be in languages other than English. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I gather that the non-independent reviews you mention were ones that you found in your search? They are certainly not in the article. What do you think of the sources in the article, eg in The Globe and Mail and the BBC? Not every notable writer/translator is in the New York Times. I am not sure that we would expect to find reviews in English-language journals of translations into Farsi, and given that the translations are banned in Iran, and Iranian media is also censored, and in Afghanistan, according to Media of Afghanistan, "penalties are still in place for defaming individuals and running material contrary to the principles of Islam", I am not at all sure where we are going to find reviews in reliable, independent sources. I still need to search for reviews of her own novels. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, that's fair. Admins, can you hold open this AfD for time to find Farsi sources, or re-list the discussion again for another week for more discussion, please? -- Asking as a former sysop who used to itch to close up debates. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist in search of Farsi sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm seeing something resembling WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR C3 from the three Farsi articles Globe and Mail. I'm grading on a curve, for several reasons: it's hard to find Farsi sources; as what she's doing is illegal in Iran, reviews are less likely than "crime stories"; and she's doing something relatively academic (contributing to the world of ideas), even though she's far from WP:NPROF. After the work of RebeccaGreen, the article is now well-sourced and fairly non-promotional, although the quotes from newspapers should probably go. Overall, I think the article makes the encyclopedia a tiny bit better. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the NZZ, BBC, and Globe&Mail coverage is enough for WP:GNG, despite some qualms about these sources above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more sources in Farsi - review of her 3 novels. I think there is enough coverage of her own novels, and of her translation work, to reach WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2019 (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.