Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection

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, default to keep. Despite a heavily slanted !vote count towards "delete", most of those who argued for deletion made no attempt in analysing the inherent quality of the cited Persian-language sources. It is an oft-forgotten Wikipedia policy that foreign-language sources should not be considered inferior to English-language sources, particularly in determining source reliability and establishing notability. The sourcing guideline merely suggests that if equivalent English-language citations are available they should be preferred. The result of this debate should not preclude anyone with competence in analysing the Persian-language sources from re-nominating the article for deletion. Whether this article should be renamed is now beyond the remit of AfD.

I hope to remind all editors participating in this debate that a lack of English-language sources is not a valid reason for deletion if foreign-language sources are given, nor is one's lack of ability to understand a foreign-language source a valid argument against the source's reliability. Deryck C. 14:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection

15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Nothing in the prose and no evidence from reliable sources to show that this particular intersection has encyclopedic notability. Contested PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete If every intersection with a gas station and a shopping center is "notable" then open the floodgates and Katie bar the door. Everything would then be notable, and everyone can write an article about anything and everything. How about a rural intersection with no gas station and no shopping center? Why not? Ridiculous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Cullen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to show that this is any more notable than any of the millions of other intersections in the world. JIP | Talk 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly rename - This is a major intersection in a provincial capital that appears to likely be named after the June 5, 1963 demonstrations in Iran, which suggests that it's a pretty big deal in context. I'm inclined to believe that the subject is within the scope of our project, but should anyone disagree, we might consider recruiting a Farsi speaker for verification purposes and to determine whether coverage exists in the Iranian media. As a side note, the coordinates listed by this article seem to be incorrect — I'm seeing this as the most probable location.   — C M B J   10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: "چهارراه پانزده خرداد" is one translation.   — C M B J   05:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 2: "چهارراه پارامونت" is another translation.   — C M B J   09:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 3: One resource confirms that many existing traffic junctions were renamed after the Iranian Revolution. If anyone can ascertain this intersection's prior name, it may reveal additional information of pertinence.   — C M B J   12:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 4: Two additional search terms are "چهار راه پارامونت" and "چهار راه پانزده خرداد". These are just based on another stylistic variant of the Farsi word for 'intersection' ("چهار راه" as opposed to "چهارراه"), but the content yield is fairly different.   — C M B J   10:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Context aside, we can do nothing unless there are reliable sources to back up the page. I don't see any here. —Ed!^(talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and burn with fire. If it's named after the demonstrations that can be mentioned as a footnote in the demonstrations' article. "Coverage in the Iranian media"? For a road intersection? Don't make me laugh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a fairly decent number of Iranian articles turning up that associate this location with contemporary political activism. From the best I can tell, demonstrations like this and this are reported to begin at the intersection on a fairly regular basis.   — C M B J   12:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete—can be covered in the articles about the demonstrations, but otherwise fails WP:GNG on its own. Remember, notability can't be inherited. Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

When this nomination was made, it was, based on search results, impossible to discern whether the article was even true. We now have 14 sources—six cited in the article, eight on the talk page—that at minimum substantiate the veracity of this subject. We've got city officials citing it as a subject of collaborative, public-private transportation planning efforts in the area. We've got religious leaders proclaiming it as an effectual target for broadcasts via a new outdoor loudspeaker system. We've got community organizers routinely requesting permits from the city to convert it into a place of mass assembly, political activism, and mourning. We've also got at least 213,350 Google hits in Farsi, which are almost certain to turn up even more information.

In practice, many similar transportation and landmark survive AfD on the basis that they're intrinsically empirical and relevant enough to warrant inclusion when a reasonable amount of disparate material is available. In this case, we've already got tremendous linguistic and cultural barriers working against us, but we're still able to come up with a fair bit of detail. That's saying a lot.   — C M B J   14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. There are six references without a translation of the Persian titles. There are eight more on the talk page, and with both sets of citations, I can't evaluate the applicability of these sources because I don't read Farsi script nor speak or read Persian. These references could be recipes published in the Iranian media for all I know. I take it on good faith that they are not, but I can't evaluate them.
2. These six references all support this intersection being the locations of protests in the last two years. Being the location of a notable event doesn't make the location notable. It is my personal opinion, with which you are free to disagree, that you haven't met the bar of WP:GNG to establish that this intersection is well known, in and by itself, as a demonstration space. It's a fine distinction, but it exists.
3. The other information you mention is not the in the article at this time, and I can't judge an article on "what-ifs" when I can't read the titles of purported sources used to support possible information. Add the information, and please give us some information so we can judge these sources.

Sorry, but in my opinion, this intersection can still be covered in the articles on the protests and it doesn't warrant its own article, at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Relister's comment: This discussion was closed as "delete". Following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 7, I have relisted it for the following reason: Several people believe that the sources added during the AfD might have changed the outcome had there been more discussion, so it can't hurt to try and see whether that is indeed the case.  Sandstein  08:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment My initial recommendation to delete was criticized in the deletion review, and in hindsight, I regret that my comment attracted that criticism, which may have had some validity. At the time I made my comment, the only information available to me about this intersection was that there was a gas station and a shopping center located there. It has now been established that demonstrations assemble there. If translations of reliable sources can be furnished here that give significant coverage to this intersection as a notable place because of its connections to notable demonstrations, then I will withdraw my recommendation to delete. All I ask for is significant coverage of the intersection itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Clearly not notable. The intersection's only claim to fame is that there were a couple of relatively minor demonstrations there that didn't receive any significant new coverage outside of the country, and it hasn't become a by-word in its own right. Nothing special about the place itself. No new evidence has been produced establishing that the intersection itself enjoys any notability beyond that inherited from the demonstrations. It's just an intersection with a gas station. This is a far cry from Tienanmen Square, for example. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There's actually known source material that doesn't pertain to the demonstrations, but it's still on the talk page since I wasn't notified when this AfD was relisted and didn't find it until just shy of a week later. I believe that more is likely available offline, so I'm also working to try and find someone in Iran who can help make that determination. As for several of the other arguments here, I'd suggest seeing here and here. If this were just another intersection, then I'd argue that it wouldn't have two distinct proper names. The fact that it was named at all arguably confers status as a geographical feature. We typically include articles on such places and I see no reason why this should be an exception. And it's largely irrelevant as to whether the place is or isn't known outside Iran, because that's not an indicator of notability.   — C M B J   22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete  Certainly not a hoax and certainly not trivial.  There are many sources that in total come with a preliminary presumption of notability.  However, the sources need to be high-quality due to their war-mongering content.  As per WP:V, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."  However, evaluation of notability is not necessary as the title of this article is not WP:V verifiable in the English language.  There are no English sources in the article, and I could find no reliable English source that verified the existence of either "15 Khordad intersection" or "Paramont intersection".  Unverifiable titles should be deleted.  As per WP:FRINGE, "it is of vital importance that [articles] simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no claims being made here that would be rightfully described as exceptional. As for titles, they need not be readily available in English for an article to warrant inclusion; there is not, has not been, and should never be such a requirement. Translated material in any language is suitable for inclusion—see WP:GNG, WP:NONENG and WP:RFT.   — C M B J   12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me repeat that I've only looked at translations of three of the sources, but in these sources I saw war-mongering concepts.  Do you deny that these sources are conveying war-mongering concepts?  Is the war-mongering real, or is this printed propaganda, i.e., what evidence is there to separate the two?  Does Wikipedia have articles on all of the Persian publishers being cited?  Do you agree "it is of vital importance" that Wikipedia not be a mouth-piece for war-mongering propaganda, at least not without "multiple high-quality sources"?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the veracity of claims, I do not have reason to believe that any articles I saw were factually compromised. Many of the articles were corroborated across multiple unrelated sources, with some events—like the 15 Khordad ones—even being available on YouTube from both first-person and helicopter perspectives. Other articles pertained to information like traffic planning, city permits and loudspeaker installation, so the chance of these being fabricated is very low. In terms of warmongering, I don't know for certain which of the three sources you're specifically referring to, but I honestly can't see how that in any way relates here. If you're somehow suggesting that we shouldn't describe rudimentary claims (i.e., X rallied for Y at Z) then I would have to disagree that this constitutes some sort of misdeed on our part. Lastly, we do not require that publishers have articles about them to qualify as a reliable source, but even if we did, it'd be a poor indicator of integrity for non-English sources. The ones we're dealing with here are pretty high quality on average; though, again, it's reasonable (and much more valid) to instead argue that they're trivial in relation to the intersection.   — C M B J   14:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the idea that something in Persian can be machine translated into English and an idea that does not exist in the English language can be created by the English Wikipedia, not just as content but as a notable title; I find this to be contrary to our notability guideline, our verifiability policy and our original research policy, as well as our WP:UCS essay.  IMO, we should be strict with the verifiability and WP:NOR policies regarding article titles.  I've previously supported as a requirement of new articles that a source be provided on the talk page documenting the title.  What source would you provide here?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have very different opinions on several things you've said here, but I'll refrain from commenting for now because I want to stay on topic. With respect to what material I would cite for this article's prospective title, I'd say any kosher material with the most common native descriptor; which in this case is debatable between either Paramount Intersection (چهار راه پارامونت) or 15 Khordad Intersection (چهارراه پانزده خرداد). There is no original research involved in translating either of those names because they require no original thought. It is merely an act of presenting existing material in another language, which is a widely accepted practice.   — C M B J   15:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those are two proper names, not concepts, so they must be translated based on their semantic meaning.  For
"چهار راه پارامونت" "چهارراه پانزده خرداد", "Four Way Paramount," "Crossroads khordad" is what Google comes up with, and anyone that says that those are proper names or could be used as proper names is creating the names, which is an origination of thought.  It appears that people in the English-speaking world (or those that speak with encyclopedia-quotable authority) have no proper name for this intersection.  And I don't see parentheses in either of the cited titles or in the resulting translation, and you aren't asserting that "15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection" as a proper name exists, so we have consensus that that title is to be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Translating this article's title does not involve the same original thought that would go into, say, the native name of a person or township. It's simply "پانزده خرداد" ("Fifteen" [پانزده] "Khordad" [خرداد]) or "پارامونت" ("Paramount" as in "پارامونت پیکچرز" or "Paramount Pictures") and "چهارراه"/"چهار راه" ("four" [چهار] "way" [راه], the same descriptor used for intersections/crossroads like چهارراه سیدعلی and چهارراه اسلامبول). Again, I reaffirm the position that a faithful representation of content from another language does not violate the spirit of our project's goals or accepted practices, but you do have a point in that we generally prefer proper names be presented in their transliterated form. I'm not sure whether it would be justifiable in this case or not, though I'll go ahead and work on getting the name anglicized by a native Farsi speaker so that we can have the option. And yes, we do have consensus for the parenthetical title to be superseded by a redirect to one that meets our usual style guidelines, assuming the article is kept.   — C M B J   02:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be discussing a Move followed by a delete of the redirect left for 15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection.  The first problem is what to move the article to:

• Fifteen Khordad intersection
• Fifteen Khordad crossroads
• Four Way Fifteen Khordad
• 15 Khordad intersection
• 15 Khordad crossroads
• Four Way 15 Khordad
• Paramount Pictures intersection
• Paramount Pictures crossroads
• Four Way Paramount Pictures
• Paramont intersection
• Paramont crossroads
• Four Way Paramont
• Paramount intersection
• Paramount crossroads
• Four Way Paramount
• corner of Enqelab-e Eslami Street, Lotfali Khan Street and Qasrodasht Street
• Shiraz rallying point
• Shiraz gathering area
• [transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهارراه پانزده خرداد]
• [transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهار راه پارامونت]

I don't doubt that you can find editors that would agree with creating the article with one of these names, but from my viewpoint, the pressure to create unsourced article titles like this is why we need WP:Identifiability as a policy.

Second problem, as discussed, quality of the sources is difficult for English readers at AfD to assess, and the "activist assemblies" appears to me to have war-mongering content.

Third problem which I mentioned on DRV, the sentence, "Paramount Intersetion has been the rallying point of numerous public gatherings and activist assemblies." is not currently sourced in the article and appears to be WP:SYNTH.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Once more, I'd prefer to refrain from engaging in extraneous discussion here and would strongly object to any new policy that further undermines our project in this area. With respect to this particular article, I realize that you're intentionally going for a hyperbole to emphasize your point, but:

• Fifteen Khordad intersection - I couldn't input the numbers "15" with that Farsi text due to bizarre software limitations, but we go by WP:COMMONNAME and "Fifteen Khordad" is virtually nonexistant (even when just referring to the occasion itself) in English
• Fifteen Khordad crossroads - same as above
• Four Way Fifteen Khordad - not realistic
• 15 Khordad intersection
• 15 Khordad crossroads
• Four Way 15 Khordad - not realistic
• Paramount Pictures intersection - "Pictures" is not a part of the title in any relevant material
• Paramount Pictures crossroads - same as above
• Four Way Paramount Pictures - same as above
• Paramont intersection
• Paramont crossroads
• Four Way Paramont - not realistic
• Paramount intersection
• Paramount crossroads
• Four Way Paramount - not realistic
• corner of Enqelab-e Eslami Street, Lotfali Khan Street and Qasrodasht Street - not realistic
• Shiraz rallying point - this is inaccurate and wouldn't fly for POV reasons
• Shiraz gathering area - same as above
• [transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهارراه پانزده خرداد]
• [transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهار راه پارامونت]

Naming issues are content issues and thus should usually not be definitive at AfD. With that said, if we're going to have that discussion and the dilemma is intersection vs crossroads vs transliteration, then we need to take a look at the relevant guidelines:

• WP:UE: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization. [...] In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader."
• WP:EN: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic. [...] It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about[.] If, as will happen, there are several competing foreign terms, a neutral one is often best. The sections "multiple local names" and "use modern names" in WP:NC (geographic names) express some ideas on resolving such problems."
• WP:NCGN: "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine. [...] We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive."

Lastly, the sentence you find objectionable has been slightly rewritten to avoid synthesis.   — C M B J   04:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

re: "...content issues...should usually not be definitive at AfD".  I don't agree, AfD is only for content issues, deletion is only applied to content (I'm avoiding saying anything more here).  Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"hyperbole" means "extravagant exaggeration" like "an ice cream cone a mile high".  I think a technical list with a reason for each entry bears little relation to "extravagant exaggeration".  Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence with potential WP:SYNTH remains unsourced.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've not before seen what you have quoted from WP:UE WP:EN and WP:NCGN, so its probably best that I not try to respond two hours before this AfD is scheduled to close, but I think policies I've previously cited remain applicable:

• As per WP:V, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
• As per WP:FRINGE, "it is of vital importance that [articles] simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."
• As for the idea that something in Persian can be machine translated into English and an idea that does not exist in the English language can be created in the English Wikipedia, not just as content but as a notable title; I find this to be contrary to our notability guideline, our verifiability policy and our original research policy, as well as our WP:UCS essay.

Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Individually:

• No, AfD is not a place designed to hash out titles and other regular editorial problems; it's for issues that explicitly preclude an article's existence. The argument that translated subjects inherently fit into the latter category remains unsubstantiated.
• Suggesting that we would arbitrarily name any article Four Way Paramount Pictures is a hyperbole. It's against our naming conventions, it's against our stylistic guidelines, it bizarrely incorporates a word that never existed in any of the source material, and it's semantically bordering on unintelligible in the English language. I dare say it's giving that lofty ice cream cone a close run for its money.
• The sentence you take issue with was modified in an attempt to avoid synthesis. If you still object to it in its current form, then I'd suggest simply rewriting it to your liking.
• As for the idea that there's something exceptional being claimed here, I'm yet to see anything other than proof by assertion. Exceptional or fringe claims would be "the Iranians are secretly hiding a missile silo under the intersection", not "Paramount Intersetion has previously been the rallying point of public gatherings and activist assemblies".
• I've been more than fair in undermining my own WP:N arguments (via the idea that the sources may be considered trivial) throughout this debate, but there's been nothing demonstrated to suggest that WP:OR or WP:V preclude translated articles on non-English subjects, or otherwise restrict translation, or apply to this article negatively in any way. In fact, we have WP:OR itself saying "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research", a wealth of information contradicting the WP:V claim (WP:GNG, WP:NONENG and WP:RFT), and a policy (WP:UE) and two naming conventions (WP:EN, WP:NCGN) that deal directly with how to name articles when English titles cannot be reliably determined.   — C M B J   14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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.