Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazal Omid

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazal Omid

edit
Ghazal Omid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here goes: non-notable for lack of reliable sources. It is entirely possible that the ARS comes by and finds a couple of good references that provide some in-depth discussion. I looked, for some time, for sources to verify the information in the article and all I could find was an interview that she did with Glenn Beck, which goes a little way toward notability. But appearing on one (or a couple) of TV shows is not enough, in my opinion. If you look hard you'll find an article from a Lodi paper which mentions here, but when I looked at that the relevant sections were (oddly) blanked out. Besides that, I've seen only blogs and a few mentions in the National Review.

This article is a vandalism magnet (look at the article history) and no doubt this AfD has the potential for stirring up turmoil. I figured that the subject would be easily notable and was surprised that I wasn't able to do and find much--perhaps I was right and this will be deleted; perhaps I was wrong, and I will be gladly proven so. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Expand and improve the article rather than deleting it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is a regular on Fox News (Cavuto, O'Reilly, Geraldo), a published author, and an activist who has worked with people like Robert Gates and Nancy Pelosi. Her own website links to several YouTube videos of her TV appearances (several other links are broken), and the website for her book shows many reviews by reliable sources. I am sure she is pure vandal-bait, and if you watch her interviews it isn't hard to see why! But notable, definitely. I will do my best to add some the RS info to the actual article, but unsure if I can pull it off this week. May have to take your advice and sic the ARS on this one! Tarastar42 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appearing on TV does not necessarily contribute to notability. Like any other form of coverage, it depends on the depth and the topic of the coverage. If a TV producer decided to do a segment about her book, then that argues for the notability of her work (and by extension, the author herself). But if she's just invited to give her views in a programme about another topic (e.g. "What do you think of Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN, what do you think about human rights in Iran, etc."), it's really no different than getting quoted in a newspaper article --- it's not coverage about her and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia writing an article about her. cab (call) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The news media sees her as an expert on that, then that does count towards her Wikipedia notability. Dream Focus 11:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A television programme giving someone a seat on a panel or an interview to air their views is no different than a newspaper letting someone put a guest column on the editorial page. In terms of actual informational content conveyed, it's probably less. They say whatever they want without being required to cite sources or undergo editorial fact-checking. It is not coverage about the person in question, it is not a significant award, it has quite a low level of selectivity compared to what is required to be published by an academic press or major popular press, and it does not enhance Wikipedia's ability to write a biography of the person, which is what the primary notability criterion and WP:BIO are all about. cab (call) 11:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [2] - AP Story: she is not the main topic (and she doesn't actually have to be, accordng to WP:SIGCOV), but featured very prominently, not a trivial mention at all.
  2. [3] - I really don't know what kind of editorial integrity this source has (any advice?), but it is an interesting interview with her.
  3. [4] Here is a transcript of testimony she gave to the British House of Commons
  4. [5] This search brings up a few articles in newspapers like Vancouver Sun and the Ottowa Citizen... we would have to cough up $5 to read the actual articles (although she published the article text on her own website, I am assuming you guys don't want to take her word for it?)
  5. [6] She is discussed twice in the book "iMuslims: Rewiring the House of Islam", published by UNC Press.
I know I need to actually go through these and pick out factual information to improve the article, but do any of these convince anyone that she she shouldn't just be deleted? Tarastar42 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet Another Comment A few more:
  1. [7] Fox News interviews her about her book and her experiences.
  2. [8] Interview with Sean Hannity, the clip is glitchy, but Hannity is questioning her mainly about her own experiences.
There are also many many many cable news clips of her punditry on Iran-related topics, where she is not the direct subject... but I think that being a regular TV pundit is a little different then being quoted in the newspaper once, don't you? Search her name on YouTube and you will see that she is brought out as an "Iranian scholar, activist, and author" on a very regular basis. I actually disagree with most of what she says... but she really is known by the media for constantly saying it! Tarastar42 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarastar, I'm going to have another look at the articles from that Infomart database: at least one of them looks decent. I don't accept Universal Peace TV or that Institute for Monitoring Peace as reliable sources that impart notability, but other editors may differ (esp. on the second one). That book quote is helpful, as is the AP story: those things may change my mind, and I'll get back to it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Tarastar42 (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To the nominator, I'd like to point out that being a "vandalism magnet" is not a reason to delete something. From her television appearances alone, she is clearly notable, a major news channel calling upon her for her expert opinion. Dream Focus 11:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you'll find her mentioned in many sources. There is a transcript showing her being interviewed about her book on CNN [9]. Just search for her name there, to get to the part where they start interviewing her. Dream Focus 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, I never said that being a vandalism magnet is an argument for deletion, but thank you for the advice. As for that transcript, if you had looked at the article, you would have seen that I was the one who added the sentence "...she has appeared on Glenn Beck's TV show (in 2007, on CNN).[1]" to the article, with a footnote to that very article. The claim that someone is notable because they're interviewed on TV is clearly not supported by consensus on Wikipedia, and "major news channel calling for her expert opinion": you know this was an appearance on Glenn Beck's show, right? Drmies (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were just Beck, I would agree with you, but the point is she is interviewed on every major cable news network on a fairly regular basis. Check this list of news clips: [10] If ever there is a story that could use commentary by someone Iranian, female, and slightly crazy, she is the cable news go-to-girl... and there are a surprising number of stories like that! Tarastar42 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghazal_Omid&oldid=1069121823"