Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homafaran allegiance

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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination though I would suggest a short cooling off period. I've read this through a couple of times and opinions are all over the place. I think the case for a no-consensus close is stronger now then at the original close. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homafaran allegiance

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

Not a notable enough picture to be included in wikipedia. WP:GNG states that subjects must have mention in media, this does not. Elektricity (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Every photograph of a group of people is not worthy of its own article. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not "Every photograph of a group". The photo had been very critical amid the revolution developments showing a historical incident. There are many Farsi sources passing the WP:GNG. The photo had been subject of a book entitled "the tumultuous photo". There are some other sources, too. For example, this source talks about the photographer and the incident. It says that the photo were claimed by Mohammad Reza shah regime to be fake, but Khomeini verified it and said that he had met the officers. The incident and the photo are also discussed in the official website of Iranian Army. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Event was important but not the photo which article claimed its effect/significant - not found [1] and [2]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that because it doesn't appear in 2 articles, one of which is not relevant ("absolute fury"), it can't be notable? I'm fairly sure that's not how Wikipedia defines notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This event had had many reflections in reliable sources (1 2 3 4 ).The result of one search in Google is here.Saff V. (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V. none of the sources you provided give any in depth coverage, they are more of passing mentions, the likes of which are quite common in the Iranian media. For example you said that this source is about the photograph, but it is not. It is the obituary or death notice of the photographer. An obituary of the photographer is not enough to make the photograph a noticeable subject. Your second source [3] is also a notice that the memorial service of the photographer will be held, it is not about the photograph. The other two sources are the same thing (i.e they have identical text) and they are talking about what happened on that day, not about the photograph. Your google search is also flawed, for example it lists The Mahabharata Secret By Christopher C Doyle, but searching inside the novel we find nothing mentioned about the picture. SO your argument is null and void. Elektricity (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom as there is no notability. An event is not what is actually being covered but a picture that was taken at an event. If the event is not notable then a picture taken at the event certainly is not. The references in the article advance severe POV views such as Revolutionary Iran] used in the first paragraph to supposedly support that the "...photo was published on the front page of the Kayhan daily." but is just a biased source about the revolution. This article can't even be merged to History of the Iranian Air Force because that is an article with one verifiable source so apparently filled with original research.
Keep per Mhhossein's comment. The photo is not notable because of the event itself. However, a book writing about the photo itself does lend notability to the photo. Ifnord (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as "no consensus" but this assessment has been contested on my talk page, so reopening.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the AfD closure was appropriate as no consensus, I don't think admins should be strong-armed into reopening because someone didn't like the result. The article can be nominated for another AfD after some time passes. At that point it would be more clear if it has sustained notability (and has additional sources) or it does not and it would be much easier to convince others (at least me) that it fails our guidelines and should be deleted. Ifnord (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifnord the book called "the tumultuous photo" is not a reliable sources, as it is a throwaway propaganda book/pamphlet. This is the primary reason that all inclusions in wikipedia are subject to thier mention in WP:RS, as the book does not pass, it cannot be included, and without this book, there is no other source. Elektricity (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Besides the book I presented above, there other other sources regarding the photo itself and not the event; 'The original version of the Homafaran allegiance photo to be unveiled' and 'The photo which disappointed an establishment', where it reads: "Apart from the news aspect, this picture created a lot of controversy and remained in photography history, as a document for one of the most important events of the revolution." --Mhhossein ^talk 19:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein both news items are a) from propaganda sources and b) they are actually talking about the photographer (he had passed away recently) and they mention this picture as one of his prominent works. Both news outlets are known for sensational news headings. If you can provide any WP:RS we can let this matter rest. A Reliable source should be "reliable, third-party, and published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Your sources are neither third party, nor are they reliable. I mean no disrespect to you, but the fact of the matter is that when the photographer died, there were a lot of obituaries, and the government and the propaganda news outlets were keen to report on his achievements. This happens in all regimes like the iranian one. But this does not mean that thier propaganda is a reliable source for wikipedia articles. If this were the case, then the national news services of the North Korea are replete with "great achievements" of the "nations ultimate photographers, scientists and inventors". We do not include those, and the reason is simple; they do not have any reliable sources, the same is true here. So in a nutshell, the propaganda sources, that talk about the obituary of the photographer, cannot be used to create an article on the wiki about one of the photographers works. Elektricity (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are covering the photo. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein actually they are puff pieces written to cover the death and 40 day anniversary of the photographer. If you can find any independent sources (not controlled by the iranian regime) that talk about this photograph, we can insert those. With this propped up by just trivial mentions and propaganda pieces of the iranian regime controlled media, it seems to me that the subject is non notable. There are many persian and Arabic sources that covered the revolution, there are countless books (English, Persian and Arabic) written about the revolution. If even after 30 years, not a single one of those academic books outside iranian regime controlled propaganda, and not a single one of the renowned historians gave this photograph any space, then we should heed the opinion of the historians and remove this from wikipedia as well. The revolution is not something that just happened and was forgotten, there are hundreds of books written about it in many languages. Elektricity (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating your words. You've apparently got a wrong understanding of independence of the subject. You can simply search for the photo history. For example see this one saying: "Hossein Partovi’s photo of the Shah’s air force army technicians (Homafaran) in attendance at Ayatollah Khomeini’s domicile had a significant impact on the body of Shah’s army." --Mhhossein ^talk 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein Your source actually strengthens the deletion argument. First of all it does not mention the photo by name, it does not call it Homsafran Allegiance or whatever, and secondly it is the very definition of trivial mentions, please read WP:TRIVIALMENTION. So You are actually strengthening the deletion argument here. Elektricity (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't really matter if the photo or the event is the one that's covered by sources, the material currently in the article is fine either as an article about a famous historical photograph or a historical event which had a significant photo taken during it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, WP:NOTGALLERY, and Wikipedia:Notability (events), that community consensus has determined does matter. There are multiple millions of "historic photographs" around the world but we don't push them to be more significant than the event a photograph was taken at or of, just to create a Wikipedia gallery of historic pictures. This source from the article states "...Imam Khomeini during his visit to Alawi School on February 19" and the photograph was contested as propaganda. Since it was so secretive we have to place in the article "Army public relations denied the photo but Ruhollah Khomeini confirmed its authenticity.". The world of Wikipedia does not revolve around that Ruhollah Khomeini alone can certify that the picture was not a group of "cadets" being photographed as propaganda. This is the reason for requiring multiple reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Redirect to Iranian Revolution. One or the other of those would be appropriate. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of the Iranian Air Force and redirect, on the basis of poor sourcing which fails WP:GNG. There's actually no indication that this is the most important Homafaran allegiance - you could argue that the more significant Homafaran allegiance was the act of the Iranian Air Force throwing in their support for Khomeini, not just a photo taken of the event. But the photo can accompany the retelling of the event. On this note, the History of the Iranian Air Force article needs a better explanation of what Homafaran are. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:45, 3 February 2018 (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.