Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahram Nouraei (rapper)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Wow, what a mess this AFD is. I want to assure everyone that I did read every last word here, that I gave appropriate weight to arguments not based on WP policy, and that it is as obvious to me as it is to everyone else that there was quite a bit of bad behavior here, including socking and canvassing. That being said, it appears that what was at one point a marginal case at best has nudged just over the top of the bar for notability. I am as loath as anyone to take any action that would seem to reward the various bad behaviors involved here, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either.

talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Bahram Nouraei (rapper)

Bahram Nouraei (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This rapper exists, but lacks sufficient substantial RS coverage. Article created by an apparent

single-purpose account. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Spada's comments below as to them not being RSs ... any thoughts on that? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jigsaw. Welcome back to the project. That would be a good time for you (or any of us) to re-write or add to the article (which you can have userfied, if it is deleted), with substantial RS refs. But we don't generally to my knowledge treat as notable subjects or wp articles on the basis of editors having been commissioned to write such articles in the future. (Others are welcome to correct me if I am wrong on this point). Is that the sole rationale underlying your !vote?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for welcoming me, Epeefleche. The article about Bahram Nouraei was commissioned because the editor recognizes and acknowldeges Bahram's importance and influence as an artist. I have followed Bahram's work for nearly three years. I didn't write about him before out of fear of triggering more persecution. Rappers in Iran don't have it easy, you know. And Ettala'at keep close tabs on the internet, including Wikipedia.jigsawnovicht (talk) 6:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Jisaw. I believe you may have inadvertently !voted twice above. You may wish to cross one of the !votes out (while keeping the text, as I expect you meant to title it "Comment"), and indent it below my comment, which it responds to. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your suggestion, Epeefleche. I'm still acclimating to HTML and Wikipedia protocol. I'm sleep deprived. Working on the Bahram article for publication was very intense. His life is really interesting.jigsawnovicht (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One thing has to be understood. In Iran due to limitations on certain "western" articles like music, sources might be rare to come by but these authors and figures often have a vast enough following to merit Wikipedia entries. That plus the fact that he has multiple sources already in presence makes it a keeper. I have no problem with this bloke having his page at all. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Often having a vast enough following" is not what leads to a finding of notability on wp. Rather, the subject must meet wp's notability standards. Many of these authors and figures in Iran do -- see, for example, those reflected in Category:Iranian singers; this specific rapper does not seem to have the requisite substantial coverage in RSs, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair to the doctor's point, singers are not always deemed "west-struck" like rappers are. Bahram's "Letter to the President" is cited in Laudan Nooshin's excellent "Hip Hop Tehran"—See Iranian_hip_hop#Further_reading. My lack of Farsi, the multitudinous variations of transliterations of Farsi into English, and the name changes and different name forms of this rapper discourage me from searching, but i would not be quick to delete. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would not be quick to delete. However, given the absence of verifiable, substantial RS support for his notability (having looked for it), I believe a slow deletion is in order. The problem with the above !vote, and the reason it should not be weighed strongly in the close here, is that it is not wp-policy-based.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. I view his comments as a mix of informed comment and the important essay
    WP:BIAS. Guidelines like WP:MUSIC try to give likely indicators of notability based on western typicality. The point that sources are harder to come by here is well made. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Verifiability, a core policy, concerns the contents of an article. Notability, the guideline, is a property of the subject. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this article has been relisted, I'm adding this as a new comment below the above notice as instructed. I just added to the Bahram Nouraei (rapper) article this excellent quote from London-based journalist Cyrus Sharad, who wrote IN ENGLISH that, "Against such a repressive backdrop it was perhaps inevitable that Iranian hip hop would find an audience...kids...dutifully memorising and repeating the sentiments of lyricists such as Bahram, Pishro, Erfan (Erfan Hajrasuliha), and Zedbazi with the same reverence that their elders once recited the slogans of the Iranian Revolution." This is part of the reason that Bahram was arrested and persecuted. Cyrus Sharad should be regarded as a serious journalist. His website shows that his articles have been published by Ambit / BA High Life / BBC Online / FT / Hotshoe / Huck / Iran News / Knowledge / Little White Lies / Mint / Modart / Navidson Record / New Statesman / Observer / Sight & Sound / Stella / Stool Pigeon / Sunday Times / Telegraph / Think Quarterly / Time Out / Transworld Snowboarding.jigsawnovicht (talk) 9:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    I struckout your vote here because you already voted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though Sharad is a respectable journalist, the above is in the nature of a passing mention. However, with this, the cite i mention above (as 86.44...), and some of the article cites such as that of Mashkouri, a freelancer who writes for iranian.com and used to edit zirzamin.se, it seems to me broadly incontestable that this is a notable act. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)— 86.44.38.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • But see the comments by Farhikht, etc., re the non-RS nature of the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see them but they're just arguments by assertion... 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supported by the wp policy
    WP:SELFPUBLISH. Which states in part "self-published media, such as ... personal websites, ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources.... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. ...Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Given the evidence that iranian.com has been used by Jigsawnovich to solicit !votes at wp AfDs such as -- and in fact including! -- this one, it is now beyond cavil that the site is not one wp should treat as a reliable source.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a brief (one sentence) mention in "The Music of the Children of Revolution: The state of music and emergence of the underground music in the Islamic Republic of Iran" [1] Sanam Zahir, The University of Arizona. Near Eastern Studies. So he keeps showing up in overviews of all underground music, here, or of all iranian hip hop, in Nooshin above. Has anyone checked R.C. Elling's "Zirzamin: Hip-Hop i den Islamiske Republik"? Or Sholeh Johnston? Have our Persian colleagues checked Haft Sang and anthropology.ir for all instances of "Bahram"? And so on. He is extremely difficult to search for, in a field where there is good reason for sources to be scarce, and where editors have little expertise, and yet we have quite a lot indicating notability. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The AfD for this singer's album "Sokout" was just closed as a Delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My four page feature article about Bahram will be published on February 5, 2012, and is expected to be on newsstands by February 7th. The article is in English, and will be published by an internationally recognized magazine. The article mentions Bahram's Sokout album.--Jigsawnovich (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a video, in which one appeared, be included in a broadcast segment does not make one notable. Many, many non-notable people appear in segments of broadcasts on television.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Footage of Bahram Nouraei performing was broadcast by the BBC. And it would be premature to delete this article before we find out whether in fact the feature article about Bahram Nouraei, in a magazine that meets the Wikipedia guidelines for RS, is indeed published within another week as claimed by a commenter above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BacheMosbat talk(talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I totally verified the article and its sources. At the first glance it seems he's roughly a notable person. But when I saw the sources, my point was changed. I think it's good to consider the references here:
    • [2] & [3] are two facebook-like pages and absolutely they're not reliable.
    • [4] is the Persian personal website of "Nassir Mashkouri" who is not a notable person himself. This is like a weblog, and notwithstanding reviewing Bahram, it's not notable enough to use as a reliable source.
    • [5] This one is an interview with another Iranian rapper, Hichkas. And through the interview, we can see this sentence "What couldn’t have been predicted was the degree to which kids would take those artists to heart, dutifully memorising and repeating the sentiments of lyricists such as Bahram, Pishro, Erfan and Zedbazi with the same reverence that their elders once recited the slogans of the Iranian Revolution." which just have named Bahram along some others, we can not extract anything relating to
      WP:N
      from this sentence, so this reference is invalid too.
    • This is like the same above in video format.
    • This website has the same situation of the previous link and its writer is نصیر مشکوری (Nassir Mashkouri), who, I said above, is an unknown person and wrote a review about Bahram.
Altogether, this is not a notable person according to
Wikipedia policy. ●Mehran Debate● 08:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Without accepting your analysis, to only analyze sources currently in the article is a failure of
WP:N. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This editor, who understands Farsi, has done us the service of sharing his analysis of the refs, which have been relied on in some of the !keep rationales. I'm not certain why one would accuse him of a "failure". He has done precisely the correct thing, and we should all thank him for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple epee. Notability isn't a property of an article, in any version. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mashkouri is mentioned at least six times in The Music of the Children of Revolution and at least once in "Hip Hop Tehran". A google books search for "zirzamin.se", which i recall reading he used to edit, and in which his Bahram review also appeared, returns 5 results, one of them Young and Defiant in Tehran, University of Pennsylvania Press, again citing "the editor" (probably Mashkouri; the preview does not extend to the notes). Perhaps Persian isn't everything when it comes to evaluating sources. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we never rely on Google results in AfD. I'll be oppose of deleting the article if only I see it's notable. Your statements is not acceptable about Mashkouri, the Persian reference used in the article is obviously unreliable, you can ask it in
notable? (Under which criteria?) ●Mehran Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Mehran. I'm referring to specific sources, but also telling you how to see them and others. I accept that you would oppose deletion if you agreed that he was notable. I must reply to your question, which I thank you for, at some length.
Please review the video at the bottom of this page[6], which is from
VOA
. (Epee, this is perhaps instructive for non-farsi peeps also.) Mashkouri appears as an expert on Persian hip hop; he is introduced at 13:33. At 18:15 they discuss zirzamin.se. At 19:50 Bahram appears. At 25:30 is Erfan + Bahram's "Ino BeFahm". Mashkouri's segment ends at 43:06.
In addition to
VOA, The Music of the Children of Revolution, "Hip Hop Tehran", etc. as detailed above, Mashkouri is relied upon in Sholeh Johnston's paper "Persian Rap" for the Journal of Persianate Studies
Volume 1, Number 1, 2008. (You can verify this by searching his name on Google Scholar).
So, I deduce that Bahram is notable in the following wise:
  • 1a) Mashkouri is an expert in the field (I view this as undisputable) and his review is therefore acceptable as an RS per
    WP:SELFPUBLISH
  • 1b) His review was also published in zirzamin.se which is so widely cited in high-quality sources (i'll give specific sources on request, or come back to it later) that it is at least approaching an RS.
Perhaps the VOA footage qualifies as significant coverage of Bahram (I can't really judge) in which case
WP:BAND
1, is already met. This is basically the GNG which is all i really care about when it comes to notability.
Thank you my friend about your answers you gave. I try to answer step by step:
  • Note; Sock Block: Persian Clique has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first lacks substantial RS coverage and in any event does not in itself make one notable -- many people have been arrested. And as to the second, different wikis have different notability guidelines (and they are not always immediately enforced), so existence on another wiki does not mean that a subject is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want you to read
    WP:BLP1E. ●Mehran Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm answering for myself. Thought that might be obvious.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's not necessary for anyone else who reads the query and can't shed light on this to answer in the negative. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. Now you appear -- a newly created SPA -- claiming knowledge of the same unpublished article that Jigsaw (a confirmed sockmaster) claims to have written, but not yet had published.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not comport with
    wp:crystal. The opposite would comport with wp:v -- deleting, per the above (ignoring the sock !votes and relying on policy-based !votes), with leave to re-create if substantial RS coverage appears. I see no reason to rely on the statements of socks. There is no existing Rolling Stone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the source, that remains significant and very reliable. Are you arguing that, as the journalist was a bad WP user, "Rolling Stone Magazine" has now become a unreliable source? Probably the more appropriate process for this article would have been a deletion a couple of weeks ago and a recreation in these days, but, since we are here, you should accept the validity of the source, even if you don't like the journalist (with reasons).Cavarrone (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppetry was a stupid error and now Wikipedia has lost a talented editor, that's my take on JA/Jigsawnovich. But there is a substantial web footprint for this guy, I state again, combined with the big Rolling Stone spread, combined with the fact that art seems to have crossed into politics in this instance which makes this an even bigger public figure... So it's a tragedy for WP and a Keep for the piece both, in my view. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of RS presumes that there is something we can deem reliable; an article that is reliable. Usually, a piece in Rolling Stone would qualify without question. This is different.
Here, the piece that Rolling Stone carried was written by someone we know without question is completely unreliable. She demonstrated that in various ways. She broke wp's rules by being a sockmaster. She socked at this very AfD. She extended the term of this Afd through a rule-bending 4th week through 1 sockpuppet. She used another sockpuppet to !vote multiple times at this AfD. She canvassed for people to !vote in support of her position at wp AfDs by posting off-wiki on the blog iranian.com. And then she duplicitously sought to convince us here that iranian.com -- the very blog she was pushing her agenda through, with no apparent or effective oversight -- was a Reliable Source! She bragged on her own site that her PR work includes writing wp articles on people for purposes of "publicizing", how many unsuspecting sites had in turn spread a wp bio she created, and how many views that bio received. She posted about--and linked to--this very AfD on iranian.com. And this AfD has been littered with !votes and actions and comments of her sockpuppets and meatpuppets. At last count, I believe she and 4 other puppets have been blocked indef as a result of this web. The article she wrote, which Rolling Stone printed, therefore falls at best into the category of what wp:RS refers to as "Questionable sources". Reliable? Not a chance.
At times, a presumptive-RS has a non-reliable person feed them the news. This contribution to Reuters is just one of many examples. We would not rely on the contributor there, who we know to be unreliable, just because they have a photo in an RS. The same with contributions by known-unreliable-editor
Stephen Glass
, even though writing in The New Republic. Similarly, we know this writer to be unreliable, and her article is therefore not an RS piece.
Furthermore, as stated above, the other "support" consists of blogs and other non-RS coverage, including by iranian.com -- the very site she used to encourage editors to !vote in support of her at AfDs. Losing her and her sockpuppets and meatpuppets is no loss for wp, btw. Unless you really believe that losing a person who engages in this sort of rampant, duplicitous, self-serving behavior to promote their own personal PR business is a loss for the project. I don't.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, being a bad WP user does not mean automatically being a bad journalist or a bad person. She was blocked as she broke other (important) rules, not because what she wrote was "unreliable" (on the contrary, she wrote that an article about the subject would be published by RS this mouth and it was true). Rolling Stone Magazine clearly has a strong editorial oversight and surely checks the facts before publishing an article online & on paper, it could not be considered a
    OTHERSTUFF argument that has nothing to do with the actual case, unless you want to consider ALL the sources as questionable sources. If you have a proof that Julie Ashcraft is an unreliable journastist who manipulates news and informations in her articles, or a proof that Rolling Stone Magazine has no editorial oversight or intentionally distorts the news, please show us evidence of that, and we all will change our votes. Cavarrone (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2012 (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/Bahram_Nouraei_(rapper)&oldid=1146657174"