Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Zolani

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sozlati (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 16 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kourosh Zolani

Kourosh Zolani (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)

After an extensive search for reliable sources, I found none. The awards and recognitions could not be verified and do not strike me as notable anyway (see the article before I got my paws on it. I can find no coverage in Google News of this person, just this press release. The albums haven't charted, etc. No notability, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree. I don't think that the article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it has no third party references, just a link to the persons own biography. On further inspection, I also noticed that the paragraph user Thomasshane had inserted into this revision of the article, is a copy from this website - one of the two first party references. Even subsequent edits to the article made by this user were almost identical to the information on this website. Furthermore, as user Drmies has said, it seems that Google brings up few, if any, hits about this person. In conclusion, I support the deletion of this article. I do hope not to upset user Thomasshane, as his edits do seem to have been made in good faith (although they may be considered as advertising, especially since they were copied from a first party website), but the article just isn't significant enough.Beeshoney (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC) One more thing. The only image used in this article that was added on the 6th of August, is going to be deleted on the 13th of August because of insufficient copyright information. Beeshoney (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dear Drmies and Beeshoney My friend Thomas brought this discussion to my attention. We are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who are trying to introduce notable artists and scientists from our community in Wikipedia to increase peace and understanding among our cultures. I am really sorry that our attempts causes problem for Kourosh Zolani's page. I understand my friends made some mistakes editing his page but we did not intend to cause any harm. Kourosh Zolani is a respected well-known artist in our community. He is an independent artist and his music is not commercialized but it is well received by local radios and TVs. I heard his interviews on KPFK Global Village show and recently with the Jon Lewis show. Kourosh has done a lot of work to reach where he is now and I strongly believe he deserves to be presented in wikipedia. If I may, I would like to invite you to just watch his new music video on youtube [1] and get a sense of who he is. Our group policy is to select artists who at least have google hits higher than 30,000 in google search engine to introduce them on wikipedia. If you search "Kourosh Zolani" in google, he has above 70,000 hits. Please give us a chance to correct what we did wrong. I will work on his page personally and make sure to include reliable sources. I sincerely apologize for all the trouble we caused. In conclusion, I strongly suggest to keep this article. Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. The number of Google hits is not relevant. What matters is reliable sources. Find those and this discussion can be closed very quickly. This isn't about doing anything wrong and there is no need to apologize. BTW, "Drmies" gets almost 5,300 hits in Google--I got some more work to do. :) Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With all due respect, WP is not a webhost to promote local community members. The artists that you hope to include, may be notable on a community or local level, but may be fall short of the required criteria to establish notability here. WP relies on secondary and third party sources to establish notability. The only sources that I find to support inclusion are those found on the subject's Internet website, which are not considered reliable. If additional sources can be found to support notability, I would opt to keep the article. Until then, I recommend deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The harm lies in its non-compliance with WP:BLP. The article does not have a single reliable source. In the end, the only source that can verify the claims in the article is the subject's website. Ignoring that makes a mockery of the project. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I made some bad edits on Kourosh Zolani's page which I apologized before and I do so again. However, I do not understand why you should question the integrity and nobility of the artist and his recognitions. I found this third party link to the one of Kourosh Zolani's awards. His name is mentioned in the 7th category from the bottom of the list. Here is the link to the organization's website [2]. This award was mentioned in his page before it was removed: Best Solo Instrumental Album of the Year – Peaceful Planet, (selected among 10,000 CDs spanning 85 countries), Just Plain Folks International Contest, 2004. I vote to keep this article. It has the capacity to become an informative page on the WP. Thomasshane (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Comment. Hello again. The link that I mentioned does support one of the Kourosh Zolani’s awards and it is from the award organization’s website not his website. Thomas provided this link to establish that Kourosh Zolani's awards are authentic because Drmies put the page for “deletion discussion” when ThomasShane was working on the awards section (please review the page history). Thomasshane stopped working on the biography, when he learned that he was not doing good edits. The biography was the same as it is now and he was not trying to change that anymore. He was working on the award section when the page went up for the discussion. As I mentioned before our purpose is to introduce notable Iranian-American artists and scientists in English WP because English is one of the most spoken/known languages in the world. Our hope is to communicate and educate people that beyond fear and uncurtaining that exist in the realm of politics, when it comes to the people, we are very much the same, accomplished artists, scientists, teachers….
    It seems to me that this discussion is turning to a cultural differences debate. Who is a notable artist? We consider an artist notable judging by his work not by trivia. If an artist is not a mega artist and has not been featured all over the tabloid, then he is not good enough to be presented on WP? Kourosh Zolani is a well-respected composer and inventor. He has given a new life to an ancient instrument from 699BCE and modified it to a completely new modern instrument. I still highly recommend keeping this article; it adds more to the body of knowledge stored in WP. Sozlati (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Please read this (Biographies of Living Persons), this (Notability), this (Verifiability) and this (No original research). I would like to bring up your statement: We consider an artist notable judging by his work not by trivia." I am specifically pointing to the We bit. Whether the article conforms to the Wikipedia guidelines I have just mention will determine if it stays, not what you think. Also, I quote this sentence from the No Original Research guideline: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." I will not be commenting again in this discussion if it involves me repeating what I have just said. Beeshoney (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the process of discussing Articles for Deletion (AfD) often looks like a democratic vote, this is not in fact true. This discussion presents an opportunity to recommend action according to established policy. There could hypothetically be seven keeps and one delete. If the policy cited recommends to delete, the closer will follow that recommendation. Wikipedia is not concerned with "need" or whether or not a subject "deserves" to be included in the encyclopedia. Opinions have no bearing here. What matters is notability that is verified through reliable secondary and third-party sources, properly cited. In order to verify the Farsi sources provided, we need to have a translation. Can you provide this? According to policy, the translation can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. Inviting others to vote a particular way won't really help within this recommendation process. That said, I would like to be able to verify the content within the article as sourced through the Farsi references. If this information can be provided, I may be more inclined to recommend that this article be kept.
    The article as it currently stands needs work in order to bring it into conformance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In order to assist you as you move forward with editing future articles, I would like to suggest a review of WP:FOOTNOTES, WP:MOS, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP. Compliance with the policies presented in these areas will help you to possibly avoid future deletion discussions. It may also help you to review the article on how to discuss an AfD. There are a few more days for others to weigh in with their recommendations on this particular article. Either way, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you decide to stick around and add more to the encyclopedia in the future. In the meantime, I hope my ideas help somewhat. Cindamuse (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just read the article and it's history and took a look on it's reference. also I did a quick search on internet myself. I think Kourosh Zolani's work is very notable and so important in music science. The composition of an ancient instrument from East with a complete set of modern instrument from West is a notable brilliant work. This is not a temporary notability. His work verified on The one of most official newspaper in Iran ,Irannewspaper which is issued by the government.(The link connect you to an article on this newspaper regarding to reference no 2) In addition, the last article has a strong structure and supported by very good and reliable references. It seems there is no more excuse to remove this article. So I strongly support to keep this article. thank you.mamali (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)— Mrjalali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Blatant IP vote-stacking collapsed

Please be aware that ALL of the above IP addresses voting to keep the article have made no edits to Wikipedia except to this page. (I am starting to get a bit suspicious about this - Thomasshane has gone surprisingly quiet) Also, user "Mrjalali" has only made edits to the article being discussed for deletion, and also to Memoirs of Sangesar, which simply redirects to the article being discussed for deletion. I think that this article should also be deleted, as it has no in-line references. (I am probably going to put it up for speedy deletion as it is a bio) Just to some up, nearly ALL of the people voting to keep the article on this discussion page have made few other edits to Wikipedia. Beeshoney (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don’t know where these IP supporters came from. We did not invite anyone to weigh in or to vote for the article and as you see this move does not even help us.Sozlati (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just tagged three IPs as {{spa}}s. Everyone is allowed to comment here: IP editors may offer sound arguments for keeping or deleting the page. The IPs I tagged, however, appeared to regard this as a vote: that is quite mistaken. The decision to keep or delete the page will be taken based on the quality of arguments, not the number of "votes". Indeed, this is explicitly not a vote. TFOWR 10:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This would be harder for me to decide if it wasnt for all the cheating going on above. Sadly wikipedia depends on reliable sources to judge notability and at present they are clearly lacking. It is not very nice and i can see why it doesnt seem fair, but other actors, bands and musicians get their articles deleted or do not even get one at all. If some more 3rd party reliable sources are found ill change to keep. But the google search i did only came across the newswire press release mentioned by Drmies above about an agreement with "eileen koch" which does not have an article either. The fact this guy is in America and there is no reliable news sources to back up notability is very problematic, i could understand if this was someone in Iran, it would be harder for us to find western sources to judge notability and so there would be more justification for keeping without such sources but to be without coverage in western press about someone in the USA is a problem, there should atleast be some newspaper articles about the guy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've put the obvious vote-stacking by similar IP addresses above in a collapse box, and semi-protected the debate to prevent a recurrence of the same. ~ mazca talk 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable artist of highly unusual instrument who is credited on Grammy nominated artist's world music album [3]. All the crap athletes and other rubbish and we can't make room for this distinguished musician? Sure he's in the early stages of masterful self-promotion, but he's got talent and including him improves the encyclopedia. Santur now santour forever!!! Freakshownerd (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've gone through and made inline notations within the article. These are the items and issues that need to be cleared up regarding the notability of this article. At this point, the article fails notability, because the claims made in the article cannot be verified. While it is true that foreign sources may be used, WP:NONENG states that translations must be available on request in order to verify dubious information presented in the article. These translations may be placed as footnotes in the article or added to the talk page if the translation is very long. Either way, without these translations, this article fails notability and verifiability. There are a few days left to bring this article into compliance with WP policy that would support inclusion. Anybody can claim notability all they want in this discussion. However, if the claims are not backed up by secondary and third-party sources, the claims mean nothing. Good luck. Cindamuse (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is clear, as user Cindamuse has shown, that the article is still not good enough. I still propose that the article is deleted, unless there are some very significant changes. I find it hard to believe that the article can be improved considering how scarce third party references are in English. Beeshoney (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Beeshoney, what is wrong with you? You ruined an article in a good shape for your own agenda? Do you even follow WP guidelines? Here is link to the article when I left it yesterday before, you made your edits. WP is based on common decency. You wrote “No reference saying he went to the University of Art in Tehran. No reference saying he studied classical composition. No reference saying he trained with Faramarz Payvar.)" What do you mean; you expect to see the artist college transcript? What is your agenda? This is way beyond constructive editing. Are you behaving like this because he is originally from Iran? Sozlati (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. I quoted several times from WP that it is all right to use non-English source in some circumstances: "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.” Why did you remove reliable sources in Farsi against WP rules? Unfortunately, I see a trend of anti-Iran activity in your edits. Sozlati (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. You are mistaken. Those espousing this view are taking the policy out of content. Foreign sources may be used. However, translations must be required. Here is the WP:NONENG policy in whole:
    Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.
    Many statements have been in and about this subject of this article that cannot be verified. Accordingly, before the notability can be established, translation must be provided. Policy clearly states that if requested by other editors, the original content AND the translation must be provided. Short of that, this article fails notability and verifiability. No reliable sources are available to support inclusion. Cindamuse (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the risk of being redundant, can I just point out that none of the sources in English about our subject count even remotely as reliable sources? The most reliable of 'em all is that link for the Grammy, but participating on one album, even if it wins a Grammy, does not make for automatic notability. If this is the only relevant thing that we can verify, then the subject deserves a redirect to that album, no more. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I now support the deletion of this article even more than I did previously. The article now says that "He is known for designing and playing a playable chromatic santur." In what way is this notable? It used to say that "He is known for designing and playing the world's only playable chromatic santur.", but no references could be found to back this up. The fact that no references could be found shows just how un-notable this person is. Beeshoney (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to WP neutral point of view (NPOV), "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias…". With the help of several editors, the article was fairly presented Kourosh Zolani. However, an editor changed the content to poorly present the artist and undermine his work. The administrators who decide to keep or delete the article, please compare these two versions. I strongly supported to keep the article all along this discussion and tried hard to edit it base on WP guidelines. However, the article in this form harms the artist reputation and provides biased information to the WP readers. I don’t think it would have any value to keep it, if it represents ill information as it does in this form. Sozlati (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is in its current form because you keep on inserting un-sourced information. As I have said many times, this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, if his instrument is unique, we need an online reference in English confirming this, not an Iranian Newspaper. If he really is that prominent, this shouldn't be difficult. At this current time, I still support deletion, as the article doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. In the past few days, very few new, third party sources that are in English have been added. Beeshoney (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion rationale. So, what do we have after all is said and done? Beyond all the comments, we have:
  1. a lack of notability. WP:NRVE states that notability requires verifiable evidence. This article provides none.
  2. a BLP that lacks reliable sources to indicate that the subject of the article is notable.
  3. an article that claims that the subject is a composer, but provides no list or information to support or verify his work. The article provides no information on work that he has composed.
  4. a musician that plays what he claims is a unique instrument. We have no idea what makes this instrument unique.
  5. a statement from one of the original authors, in an attempt to provide clarification, stated that they were simply "trying to introduce notable artists and scientists from our community in Wikipedia to increase peace and understanding among our cultures." With all due respect, Wikipedia neither the U.N. nor the place to promote members of a community for whatever reason.
  6. several editors who have offered assistance in good faith to provide direction to the original authors of this article. This assistance has been refused. I have added inline notations to indicate where attention is needed within the article. The notations were read, ignored, and deleted. After a week, this article continues to lack support of reliable sources. It appears that his most notable contribution is serving as a session player in an album that was nominated for a Grammy Award.
Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted according to the following criteria within the deletion policy:
A. Promotional/Advertising article without relevant content
B. The article cannot be attributed to reliable sources
C. Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify article content has failed
D. Article fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:COMPOSER and so forth). It is very telling that as a musician and composer, he fails every criteria within those categories that would or could possibly establish notability.

That all said, this article needs to be deleted. It's not a racial slur or slight as has been mentioned above. Honestly, it's not personal. It's just policy. Cindamuse (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It can easily be pretended that the sources are not reliable and Kourosh Zolani has not done anything notable. The traditional Santour is an ancient diatonic instrument. Kourosh Zolani has modified it to a chromatic instrument for the first time in the history of this instrument. His compositions are now streaming all over the Internet radios. Choosing not to acknowledge his invention or his compositions, does not change the fact what he has done. An impartial judge can easily see what is going on here by checking this discussion, the article talk page, and the fair version of the article before an editor changed everything to a poor version. Truth speaks for itself. I will not repeat what I wrote here before about non-English reliable sources or notability criteria. Sozlati (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, what has Zolani invented? And if he has composed several pieces, why is it that not one is listed in this article? There have been several assertions made about the subject of this article, but they are not supported by reliable sources. Articles on Wikipedia either stand or fall based on the use of reliable secondary and third-party sources. The lede needs to establish the notability of the subject. The article states that Zolani has composed several pieces, but that statement is not backed up with reliable sources. The lede states that Zolani's instrument is unique, but fails to provide sources or clarification as to exactly what this means. Why is it so difficult to provide this information?

    You speak of "fair" versions and "poor" versions. The inline notations are appropriate markups to indicate where the article needs attention and assistance in order to satisfy criteria for notability and inclusion on Wikipedia. These were provided to assist the editors that are striving to ensure that this article is not deleted. However, rather than using the notations as guidelines to improve the article, the notations have been ignored and at times arbitrarily deleted. It would be to your benefit to address those notations rather than ignore them. I have never experienced so many people actually going above and beyond to help others ensure that an article is kept, only to have their advice be tossed aside and ignored. This is truly sad. Cindamuse (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Note. A user has removed significant part of our contributions to this discussion. Can a user do delete others contributions? Here is the link to what this user has deleted!!!Sozlati (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you desire to participate in the AfD to determine the closure of this article, the discussion must take place in this forum. For discussions to do with improving the article, these must take place here. The final decision will be taken by an administrator tomorrow (17/08/2010).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kourosh_Zolani&oldid=379258112"