Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa Sayar

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd 23:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homa Sayar

Another article that keeps picking up bad speedies. Listed here to decide the issue properly. For guidance, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents says: "Authors and writers are notable if they have released a book (other than through vanity press)"

• Keep and expand. Seems to satisfy the criteria for notability. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This should go to cleanup, not to VfD. If it doesn't improve it can be deleted in due course. Pilatus 07:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• To be fair, it was tagged for speedying only once, and at that point it didn't have the list of books and ISBN numbers attached. As it stands now, looks notable enough to me, so keep. Why is this nominated for deletion if the nominator wants it kept? Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Another sysop wants it deleted; that's good enough reason for me to bring it to VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC supports the assertion that any author who has a book published through any publisher is NOT inherently notable. Let's speedy keep this for now. Pilatus 09:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that I am notable? I've had two books published by a non-vanity press [1] [2] and although they didn't sell, they exist. I'd vote to Keep the sickeningly trendy Homa Sayar (an Iranian living in Paris! and a poet!) on the condition that Editions l'Harmattan is not a vanity press. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Editions l'Harmattan's submission notes for authors are here. It looks kosher to me. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I vote to keep. She makes me sick to the stomach, and I haven't even met her, but I can separate my mind from my guts. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Published author DV8 2XL 13:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, duh. (and I like the speedy keep idea Pilatus) HoratioVitero 15:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this one does not make sense to me Yuckfoo 17:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone has been tagging this for speedy deletion. Tony Sidaway VFD'ed it to get a proper debate, instead of just having a revert war over the tag. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, basically this is Warren Benbow take two. Same sysop. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The admin who is edit warring instead of using established channels...

07:36, 31 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Homa Sayar"

00:21, 30 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Homa Sayar" (Undeleted out of process. Use VfU or create it fresh.)

00:08, 28 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Homa Sayar"

16:20, 27 August 2005 TheCoffee deleted "Homa Sayar" (non-notable bio)

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• And the datestamp for the first version of this VfD, which I created, is five minutes after I restored the article for the second time. Sounds like it's exactly the way A Man In Black said.
• The original article as wrongly speedied is here. It clearly lists the major works published by this author. The article was not a speedy deletion candidate. The first sysop made an error. The second sysop has a Warren Benbow-shaped axe to grind. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• What happened to WP:FAITH? It's poor form to assign questionable motives to another as cover for your own actions. If in fact this was improperly speedied, what's wrong with using established channels as indicated in the edit summary? VfU is a proper debate.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 04:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Because Tony has already indicated that VfU is not incumbent upon him and he will do whatever he feels like doing regardless of what anybody else thinks. Speedy delete, nn writer. Just having published is not a valid keep criterion. I shudder to think of the consequences. Zoe 06:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just count the keep votes, Zoe. If I'm on my own in this, where did those keep votes come from? And don't say it's because I added a bibliography. The original article already enumerated her published works. At the very least it should have been listed on VfD, not speedied. RC patrollers are good, they get rid of a lot of nonsense, but sometimes a good article gets caught in the crossfire, and that's where I come in. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This was an incorrectly speedied article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mistakenly speedied by somebody, and then correctly undeleted by Tony. I don't see why Aaron and Zoe are wasting time contesting this. "She has written several Poetry books in Farsi and has also translated the famous Shahnameh (the Epic of Kings) into French" (in addition to being a Ph.D. from a French elite institution) may or may not make her notable (depending on the quality and reception of the publications), but is, at the very least, an assertion of notability. BTW, the article doesn't currently list her Persian production. It would be useful if somebody could make a Persian Google and library search and add that to the article. Uppland 07:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks for catching the bad speedy Tony. Kappa 13:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Just like VfU would have, without Tony's "heroic" efforts. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Then I take it you agree we can skip the unnecessary instruction creep since I almost invariably only rescue and improve articles that are capable of surviving a VfD. I refuse to get involved in VFU because (1) Wikipedia undeletion policy says I don't have to and (2) it would be asking people to vote on the status of an article few of them could see and none of them could edit. It would be silly to engage in editing an encyclopedia with one hand tied behind one's back. Arbcom can make arbitrary decisions, we grant it that right. I won't grant WP:VFU the right to make arbitrary and unaccountable decisions, permitting it to rubber stamp a deletion by one sysop, without the right of general scrutiny by all editors. When I undelete, we can all see what I've done and act accordingly. I don't take on cases I am likely to lose. I do not lose many cases. I win many. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you Tony for demonstrating the actual problem far better than I could: To you this is about winning.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 01:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • So the issue is Tony's motivations, not his actions and their consequences? Kappa 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It appears to be about the fact that I am able to perform actions of which he, personally, disapproves. I'm not required to jump through his hoops, so I don't, and this appears to annoy him immensely. --Tony Sidaway^Talk
      • Clearly, it's all three. By his admission, he's keeping score, so this restoration was in violation of WP:POINT. What is so wrong with Tony doing what has been suggested to him by numerous editors and administrators in good standing: Use VfU. Stop acting as though his opinion matters more than others. Stop revert warring. Is that too much to ask? Just because you are able to perform an action doesn't mean that you should.
        brenneman^(t)(c) 02:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • This could go on forever. At 04:37 last night Aaron asks what happens to WP:FAITH and at 02:08 this morning he falsely accuses me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... Go figger.... -D --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One thing which you can do if you are worried about other users not being able to see the content when listing things on VFU is to make a temporary undeletion. That is, undelete, replace with a {{TempUndelete}}-template, and protect. That way, the voters on VFU will be able to make a fully informed decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and delist from VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. KissL 09:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Guys, I'm lucky enough not to know much about either Tony or Aaron or any of the others involved in the above discussion. What I can see is this:
  • The page was created with enough content for a stub and two assertions about notability ((1) the subject having published poetry and (2) her having translated the Epic of Kings). Note that assertion not proof of notability is required.
  • The page was speedy deleted per criterion A7, although it does not fulfill that criterion (because there are assertions). WP:CSD explicitly states: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."
  • The page was directly undeleted by Tony Sidaway. Given that the deletion was out of process (as shown above), this action is acceptable. The undeletion policy explicitly states: "If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. If deletion policy dictates that the undeleted page is a VfD candidate, please list it there." From his contribution list though, Tony seems to have failed to inform the deleting sysop of the undeletion; also, he didn't immediately list the page here.
  • The page was deleted again (this time by another admin) with the rationale "Undeleted out of process", which is not a speedy deletion criterion. Tony restored it again, which is therefore again acceptable; but he did not inform the deleting sysop, which is again a mistake. This time, he listed the page here.

So, the three sysops involved all made mistakes. But I think those mistakes alone haven't caused much harm to Wikipedia (we are here discussing the article, a consensus is going to emerge, and that's that). I think the most harm is caused by the above violations of WP:FAITH and WP:NPA by sysops. Please. This kind of discussion would have belonged to your user talk pages, or nowhere. I'm amazed that a plain editor like myself has to say this. KissL 09:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well put. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• You're right. I shouldn't let myself be provoked into responding. On the idea of listing the page the first time I undeleted, I don't think that would be in order. Since the article was obviously a good one and the precedents strongly suggested notability, there was no reason at that time to consider a VfD listing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• You could try to play well with others. User:Lucky 6.9 deleted two articles which I thought should be kept, and I wrote him a note asking him if he would mind if I undeleted them, giving my reasoning. He agreed and thanked me for asking beforehand. If you had just communicated with the other admin involved beforehand, giving your reasoning, none of this kerfuffle would have occured. But you prefer, as you indicated above, to score points against others instead of working as a community. You are on record as having nothing but scorn for the VfU process, which others feel works just fine, and prefer to cowboy it alone instead of trying to garner consensus. Zoe 19:49, September 3, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.