Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebrahim Hatamikia

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. Molerat 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebrahim Hatamikia

This page has been listed on articles needing translation for seven days now, but it's still in Arabic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's in Persian, actually. See fa:ابراهیم حاتمی کیا. Apparently, someone has started to translate it into English, but most of it has not been translated yet. If the partially translated portion is correct, the subject is an Iranian filmmaker, but looking at his IMDb entry I'm not convinced he's notable. [1] This is the English Wikipedia, so delete. --Metropolitan90 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In recommendation of the translator's efforts, change my recommendation to neutral as to the current English-language version. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if someone started to translate, why are we nominating. At the very least notify the person who is translating before you delete this. (will do this in a moment). Frankly we chould allow the Persion, Arabic, or whatever language encyclopedia deciede whether or not this is notable. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No. We should apply our notability criteria. They are independent of country. Uncle G 10:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:Um... how can we tell notibility if the thing is not translated? Frankly it is notable as it is the only aribic (persian) language article I have seen in a while. (meant as a joke). Let the translator translate the thing, then bring it back here. If a move is nessacary to get the title into english, do so and let the translator work. He/She is doing us all a service (one that the majority of us can't do). —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I suggest that you read the notice on the article and the PNT discussion. I also recommend that you look at the article's history. Uncle G 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, translate, and move to Ebrahim Hatamikia. Notable director. He won an award for best film at the 24th International Fajr Film Festival[2]. His movies have been covered by several newspapers; see [3] for example from the New York Times (full text restricted). I discovered the following links that can aid a translation effort: [4] [5]. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri| 16:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if translated, otherwise delete, as this is the English Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and translate otherwise delete per nom. R.E. Freak 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in four different languages. If the translator wants to try again later, have him/her use their sandbox. Tests go there first. SynergeticMaggot 09:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the usual grace period. Quoting from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: "If an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to AfD." --Lambiam^Talk 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• I see no reason why an English-language article about this fellow would be inappropriate for English Wikipedia. It seems very strange to me that someone could actually look at this IMDb profile and come up with "not notable enough". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename this to whatever it is in English, then userify it to whoever is doing the translation. Out and out deletion seems to waste the effort already undertaken to translate... but until it's in English, it doesn't belong in mainspace, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for one more week Process must be followed. Keep for another week and then resubmit for afd. Bwithh 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't use the phrase "process must be followed". It makes experienced Wikipedians' teeth itch. One of the things about process on Wikipedia is that, if there is a good reason to ignore process, then following process is actually the Wrong Thing. Let's not fetishise it, eh? Instead explain why the result you want should be the result attained. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'll use it that phrase if I like, thanks very much. It's an entirely reasonable position. I'm a deletionist who tries to be fair, and upholding process is one of the things which keep the more strident aspects of my views and other different strident views of other people in check. I'm modestly experienced at Wikipedia, there's no need to condescend and dismiss me as a newbie either. My explanation of my reasons is good enough in this case, as the nomination clearly states that it is specifically about the grace period for translation. I don't know what you think the nomination is about. As for as I can tell, you're suggesting that for unexplained reasons, this untranslated page doesn't deserve the full amount of grace period suggested by guidelines, and so we should apply WP:IAR and WP:SNOW arbitrarily. Bwithh 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've not suggested anything of the sort. All I've said is that "process must be followed" is the Wrong Thing to say: it's anti-Wikipedia and anti-common sense and profoundly silly. That doesn't mean I disagree with your view, that the article should not have been nominated so early. It just means that I think a better argument than "Process says X, and I am a fan of process" should have been provided. Process is good only when there is a good reason to follow it; in such cases (and I don't make a claim either way as to whether or not this is such a case), it's better to state that reason rather than simply rely on the magic word "process", which, as I said, makes people's teeth itch. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and second what Mark said. Deleting untranslated articles is to stop people from dumping text only to never return; clearly someone has already started work, so the untranslated content hasn't been abandoned. If, in time, it becomes clear that the rest is not being translated, then trim away the untranslated part. --bainer (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care on the redirect; keep Ebrahim Hatamikia, moving all untranslated content to the talk page. Subject is clearly notable. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect and keep Ebrahim Hatamikia per Kelly Martin. Some process is more important than others, and the two week's grace for non-English material is a hard rule that ought to be reliable. Smerdis of Tlön 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - He's notable; I've seen his films in the international film festivals; we should be so lucky as to be that notable. Cleaned the article up a bit. Added some additional material. And there are standard forms those of us who translate use; we commment out the material until we can get back so as not to set off this alarm; I applied that technique. Williamborg (Bill) 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable, article in its current form as of today doesnt contain the persian anymore. Shouldnt have been listed for another week after it was anyway, there is a process to follow that allows for people adequate time. Thank you to whoever was working or still is working on the translation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The nominator deleted it out of process before, I restored it so it could have a chance to be translated and become the useful stub it is now. I think he is notable enough. Grandmasterka 09:44, 3 August 2006 (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.