Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh

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. While I personally don't agree with the outcome, there's no obvious consensus here. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Kaveh Farrokh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Biographical article of a very minor Canadian academic. He is a linguist with an amateur sideline in Iranian history (though no qualifications in that field). He has an extremely short bibliography. To date he has published two books on ancient Iranian military history through Osprey Publishing, a British popular (non-academic) imprint founded as a spin-off of a tea company's trading card promotion. His only other catalogued works that I've found appear to be his post-graduate and PhD theses. I've not found any citations of his works by any other academic sources and very few reviews of them (and some of those are scathing - see Jona Lendering here). Farrokh doesn't hold any significant posts or chairs - according to our article, he is a casual teacher at the University of British Columbia's Continuing Studies Division which "serves the adult education needs of lifelong learners in Vancouver and beyond".[1] He appears to have had no significant impact in higher education, outside academia or in his scholarly discipline. He does have a fair number of Google hits, but a lot of these apparently result from self-publishing (and others promoting) academically dubious Iranian nationalist interpretations of Near Eastern history - obviously these cannot be considered reliable sources. In short, he meets absolutely none of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Please note that if you want to argue to keep the article:

• The criteria for academic notability are set out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria (see points 1 to 9).
• Google hits are not a notability criterion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test).
• Personal anecdotes are not evidence. You need to cite reliable, verifiable sources.

-- ChrisO (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —ChrisO (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Kaveh Farrokh is a notable published author [2], a member of Stanford University's WAIS (World Association of International Studies)[3], and an expert on Iranian history [4]. According to Richard N. Frye, who is the most renowned scholar of Iranian history, "Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has given us the Persian side of the picture as opposed to the Greek and Roman viewpoint which has long dominated our understanding of these wars. It is refreshing to see the other perspective, and Dr. Farrokh sheds light on many Persian institutions in this history, such as the Sassanian elite cavalry, the "Savaran". ". --CreazySuit (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment WAIS is just a society (see here) and I am not sure that membership means anything special. It certainly does not indicate that Farrokh is in any way affiliated with Stanford. --Crusio (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an academic society, I didn't say it was special. The main point was that Kaveh Farrokh is a notable published author, has was alas a historical adviser to History Channel on a multi-million dollar project in 2006.--CreazySuit (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• You included it among your arguments to justify your "strong keep" !vote, suggestong that it was something special. Having said this, I didn't say you claimed this was anything special, I just said that it is nothing special.... The fact that he is a published author does not really have much weight either. All academics publish, but they are only notable if their publications are noted. This has not been shown yet. As for the History Channel connection, according to the source mentioned in the article, he was "interviewed", but nothing indicates how long, perhaps it was just a tidbit of a few seconds, perhaps it was 3 hours, we don't know. The source is not independent, it is the website of his publisher. Nowhere do I see the claim that he was a "historical adviser" to the History Channel. --Crusio (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CommentThe comment by Frye is from the introduction of the book. Another historian (Jona Lendering) calls it a dangerous book for Iranology says "it contains hundreds of errors and even quotes political propaganda" and "the manuscript ought to have been returned to the writer". Reading the talk page on Frye, I think I understand why he wrote the introduction and says what he does. We have a definite shortage of academic reviews for this author, and an overdependence in the article on this source which unless something very different occurred he submitted himself (I've edited the article, before it read almost straight from this web page [5] Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jona Lendering is not a historian, he's just a blogger who works as an archivist in real life. Comparing Jona Lendering's opinion to that of Ruchard Frye (a fellow at Harvard, and the most renowned Iranologist ), is laughable. As per Kaveh's role in History Channel's Engineering an Empire, see [6]. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to TV.com. However, that doesn't seem to be a reliable source, since everybody can edit it. Unless something significant turns up, I am starting to lean to delete. --Crusio (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit, maybe you could try finding out what a person's qualifications are before dismissing them? Lendering "read history at Leiden University (where he graduated in 1993), specialized in Mediterranean culture at the Amsterdam Free University (until 1996), and worked at excavations in Holland and Greece. After teaching methodology and theory at the Free University, he worked for some time as an archivist for the Dutch government. He founded a school for history teaching." Sounds very much like a historian to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Jona Lendering has him as an author of several books, including on Dutch history, which I'd say makes him as much of a historian as Farrokh. And it is ironic that CreazySuit is threatening me with a BLP violation warning while making comments like this about Lendering - 'just a blogger' is definitely a slur on him, see his article (and my talk page for details of CreazySuit's warning). Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing that Jona Lendering commented on Farokh shows that Farrokh is notable. It shows that Farrokh is "worthy of notice" or unusual enough to deserve Jona Lindering attention to comment on him."--Larno (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So you disagree with CreazySuit. Would you agree to put his review in the article? It's not published you know, although a lot of articles do quote his website.Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't mix issues. I mean Farrokh notable enough that deserves attention of different people. I am commenting on Farrokh and not Lindering--Larno (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If TV.com is not good enough for you, get a copy of History Channel's Engineering an Empire: The Persians, or look it up on a video streaming website, Farokh's name is in the credits. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Seems to be an established author and has a decent amount of reviews available from secondary sources. Expand the article to help improve it before deleting. Changed below --Banime (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment What reviews are you referring to? There's the introduction to the book by Frye, which isn't a review. There is supposed to be a review on the web here [7] but I've tried for several days and the site isn't available - they've only paid for 56mb a day it seems, which is basically nothing, so it isn't an impressive website and may be dead. I've found the review via Google [8] but look, the name of the website is "Kavad.com: Official Website of Dr. Kaveh Farrokh". So, can we use a review published on the author's website to show notability? Almost the opposite, I'd say. Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Changed to Delete after seeing the review in google turn out to be from his website. Thanks for the tip Doug Weller. --Banime (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO. "worthy of notice", 50,000 Google hits, he deserves attention of so many people including scholars such as Frye and writer such as Jona Lindering who commented pro or against him. Well-known in Iran and in Iranian media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larno Man (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment So many people commented here from both sides. It shows notability of this person. He draws the attention of many people to himself. It seems that the real reason for this AFD is that fans of certain POV want to get rid of their opponent in Wikipedia.--Larno (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If not even a highly motivated editor like CreazySuit can come up with evidence of notability, that most probably means there just is none. --Crusio (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a notable author and I have heard him on BBC, RFE, VOA... Nokhodi (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  "I've heard of him" is not a valid argument here, along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. VG ☎ 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- Frye's writing a foreword for a book is a strong endorsement of its content. His article makes it clear that he is a leading scholar in his field. He would not have written a foreword, if he had not thought the book worthwhile. Kaveh Farrokh appears to describe himself as an "independent historical scholar". I see little harm in this article and do not see why it should not be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the "keep" voters above could explain how any of the criteria in WP:PROF are met? Google hits are worthless, btw. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Here is another acknowledgment of Kaveh Farokh's notability by historians Antony Karasulas, Angus Mcbride, Martin Windro [9] and 54 further results for Kaveh Farrokh on Google Scholar[10]. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Those are almost entirely false positives - patent applications and engineering papers dating back to 1977 filed by a Farrokh Kaveh of Mountain View, CA. I hardly think our Kaveh Farrokh was writing papers like "Dynamic Behavior of Elastomeric Diaphragms" at Ohio State University at the age of 15. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep He has been interviewed many times on BBC and VOA Persian services. Specially with regards to Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid history. That should be enough to claim notability. Also book is available at google books [11] and it is informative to know more about the author. Also book review of Dr. David Khoupenia can be found here [12] --Nepaheshgar 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The problem with that review is that it can only be found on the web. That it doesn't seem to have been actually published is I think a problem in that the lack of published reviews works against establishing notability. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

comment we don't know if it is published in a journal or not although they are mentioned together here: [13]. Richard Frye is sufficient to establish notability. Either way, he has been brought to BBC and VOA Persian service as an expert opinion on ancient Iranian history and also English program "Engineering an empire"[14] which I saw on the learning channel. I am not going to go back and forth on this, but I believe that is sufficient.--Nepaheshgar 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Being a frequent interviewee isn't in any way a sign of notability. We certainly don't have articles on everyone who's ever appeared on television or radio. I'm afraid your TV.com source is unusable, as it's a user-generated website (like Wikipedia) and can't be used as a reliable source.-- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In that TV show he was interviewed along with four other professors/researchers. Only two of them, Patrick_Hunt and Abbas_Alizadeh have bio's on Wikipedia, and those two are definitely more notable than Farrokh. So it's marginal argument for notability. VG ☎ 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not any random interview. It is an interview about subjects of ancient history where the scholar has been consulted by BBC and VOA on particular expert matters(ancient Iran). Also the t.v. program was in the history channel [15] and the scholar was consulted on expert matters. If the scholar has consulted BBC, VOA, history channel on expert opinions with regards to ancient Persia and his book has been endorsed by Richard Frye, has written two books and different monographs, then that should be enough for notability. So the comparison to an interview with a random person on t.v. who has no books, has not been consulted by programs for expert opinion and has not been endorsed by major scholars in the field is really not valid. --Nepaheshgar 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are enough sources to establish his importance. (His book also sounds interesting and the history of Persia/Iran is much misunderstood in the West.) Northwestgnome (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ; Voice of America, as the official U.S. Government Broadcasting Board, introduce Dr Farrokh as Historian / Archeologist Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and asked about his opinion about the some especial historic aspects of the ancient Persian history : VOA official site. If he was not notable enough , then why should a US governmental press ask him as specialist ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Archaeologist? This is getting ridiculous. He isn't an archaeologist. Doug Weller (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Alborz speaks English as a fourth language and so he might have made a mistake. My darn computer right now does not open that file. I believe he has translated Baastaanshenaas (knower of ancient history) as Archeologist. Else I have heared the inerview in BBC mention him as Muwarrikh (semitic work actually from Arabic Tarikh) which in modern Persian means Historians. But Farrokh did to some actual field work and study in Kermanshah/Bistun with regards to clothing of ancient Iranians. --Nepaheshgar 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Although my English may not be excellent , but any way , in the VOA site it is written :Roundtable hosts Historian / Archeologist Dr. Kaveh Farrokh from Vancouver to discuss Cyrus The Great: Reality or Myth? , am I understang it wrong ? Here : [16]--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your English is well enough then.  :) But I think the site mis-translated since Baastaanshenaas is different than Kavoshgar. They probably put Muwarrikh as historian and Baastaanshenaas as Archeologist. Although Dr. Farrokh according to one review, worked many years in examinaning ancient clothing of Iranians and that is sufficient for Archaeology. Either way, VOA and BBC consulted Kaveh Farrokh on matters of ancient Iran and that is the important point.--Nepaheshgar 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

well , anyway , the field of Iranian [historical] study , seems to be not in the focus of extended scientific efforts , and that may explain why his books are not mentioned in many publications. Besides , his books are published recently and need more time to be mentioned .Anyway, as you said , it is sufficent for notablity .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Since when do we judge the credibility of sources and authors on WP? That's not our job. Especially when this particular author's books are found inside the libraries of some of the world's most renowned academic institutions? Since when do we have such authority to make judgements, and call this or that author "minor"? Please consider:
  1. e.g. Harvard University catalog, University of Chicago library catalog, UCLA catalog. All 3 have renowned academic programs in Iranistics and Iranology.
  2. I'm sorry, but if Stanford University academia is inviting him as a scholar, then the current attempt to discredit this author is not acceptable to me.
  3. If he's being interviewed/mentioned on The History Channel, that's credible enough to be mentioned here.
  4. If we were to apply this same criteria to all the other authors, half of all WP's sources would have to be dropped. Do you really think any of the writers of Time, Newsweek, BBC, NewYorker et al have the technical credibility to write what they write? I can give you 600 examples of cases where they clearly dont. And yet these sources are used left and right on WP.
  5. You dont have to be an active faculty, and in your own field of research, to be considered credible. That's just an absurd demand.
  6. Besides, exactly who is "major" here, and who's "minor", and under what criteria? Is Bernard Lewis a "major" author e.g.? Cuz if he is, I'd call him a liar, and wouldnt use him as a source. My point: It's not up to me and you to judge sources, so long as the sources are verifiable. Let us leave identifying and weighing the credibility of sources up to the reader. The serious reader isnt stupid; they can go look up Kaveh Farrokh, and decide for themselves how trustworthy he is. This is an encyclopedia, not the compendium of truths.--Zereshk (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. We're not discussing whether he is "credible". We're discussing whether he is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. The criteria are set out at WP:PROF#Criteria. None of your points above address any of those criteria. Could you try doing so, please? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, not exactly. You seem to be questioning his notability by basing your argument on his credibility. Your statement "I should add that he also appears to be promoting dubious Iranian nationalist interpretations of Near Eastern history" is alluding to his credibility. Or at least you seem to be using his credibility to undermine his notability. Otherwise, his position on anything shouldnt matter one way or the other. Regardless, points, 1, 2, and 3 directly can be applied to notability as well. Cheers.--Zereshk (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see where you're coming from. No, the point I was making (no doubt clumsily) is that he has a sideline in self-published polemical nationalist pseudohistorical pieces (this being an example), separately from his published works. This appears to have endeared him to some Iranians who share a similar point of view, hence you find his self-published pieces on a number of websites. This arguably doesn't have a bearing on his credibility (to us at least, though mainstream academics would probably feel differently) but it inflates the number of Google hits on his name. If it wasn't for his self-published items and his online fan club, we'd probably only see a few booksellers' websites in Google searches for him. His books appear to have received very few reviews and little attention, and nobody who's commented here so far has been able to find anyone citing his books in other publications. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • There are millions of books in a good university library. Many are by non-entities; we don't have or want an article on all of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: Since when do we judge the credibility of sources and authors on WP?. All the time. That's what AfD is for, to determine if the sources meet the requirements at WP:RS. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I have been following the passionate discussion above. As far as I can see, no convincing arguments establishing notability have been advanced. As to academic libraries holding his works, according to WorldCat "Shadows in the desert : ancient Persia at war" is held by 151 US librairies, which is not bad, but not outstanding either. "Sassanian elite cavalry AD 224-642" is held by just 6 libraries, which is negligible. The above discussion and the sources added to the article all confirm that there is hardly any notability here. I'm afraid that most "keep" votes above are motivated by the theses that Farrokh is advancing, not by his notability. If anybody comes up with real sources verifying real notability, I will immediately change my vote, but at this point I am more and more convinced that my delete vote above is the correct way to go. --Crusio (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that his publisher, Osprey Publishing, is a popular imprint rather than an academic publisher - they were founded as a spin-off from a British tea company's trading card scheme, originally focusing on military aircraft. Their books are often well-illustrated but their factual accuracy can be problematic. The many obvious mistakes in Shadows in the Desert certainly wouldn't have got past an academic editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• WAIS is a chat list with an ideology, according to its own self-description. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, basically per nom as failing WP:BIO and WP:PROF. For WP:PROF there is no evidence of high citability of his work by other academics, very few academic reviews of his work, no academic awards or honors and his two books are not widely held by academic libraries. He is quoted a few times by newsmedia as a historian but certainly not enough to pass criterion 7 of WP:PROF; as item no 14 in the "Notes and Examples" section of WP:PROF says, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." GoogleNews gives a total of 6 hits[17], certainly not enough. With WP:BIO, I do not see any examples of in-depth biographical coverage of him by independent reliable sources. All in all, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated and per views of Nsk92. X Marx the Spot (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. see the argument by creazy suit. Plus the fact that lendering criticez him, makes his works and by this himself notable.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Being criticized by someone only makes you notable if your critic has the reputation, and the causticity, of A. E. Housman or Alexander Pope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per failures as stated. Grsz^talk 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Maybe some numbers for the books will help. Of the 4 books listed in the article , 2 are only his various masters and doctoral theses, not actual publications in the usual sense, and do not contribute to notability. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War is held in 176 libraries according to Worldcat. The more specialised Sassanian elite cavalry AD 224-642 is held in 17. One moderately successful boook from a non--notable publisher does not make for notability. Neither does being invited for lectures and interviews here and there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 September 2008
• Keep. WP:PROF clearly states, "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." If someone is notoble enough to be canvessed by the BBC, VOA, History Channel and media for his opinion on historcial issues, he is indeed notable enough for Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If WP:N is invoked than the actual standards of WP:N must be applied: "... a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail ..." The few media stories that you mention quote Farrokh's opinions but in neither of these cases is he the subject of the newsstories and in neither of the cases is the coverage of him significant. Nsk92 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Nsk92's analysis. Not enough notable publications, and the other pro arguments are close to vacuous. Professors are occasionally interviewed by the press. This is far more likely to happen in the US on hot political topics like Iran than on other mundane topics. Were these interviews about his books or about his career? If not, and I suspect they were not, then they don't do much enhance his notability. It's well known that the US lacks experts on the Middle East, the US press even more so, thus they invite whoever they can to give "expert opinion" on said countries. Membership into the WAIS discussion list is laughable as argument for notability. VG ☎ 02:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - article is useful in evaluating the sources that he has authored, see no harm in keeping the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not include Alex in the comment below; but I don't see how this article helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete; if the keep !votes can come up with no better reasons than this, I must indeed conclude the subject is not notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The notability seems to be assured via the sources (BBC, VOA). This passes WP:PROF. However, remove any unverified statements per WP:BLP, and remove any weasel words. All information should be sourced. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Two commercially published books which have been somewhat widely reviewed (even if said reviews were less than kind) goes a long way. It does seem that, by any number of measures, this person is notable, although also apparently polarizing. Agree with User:The Evil Spartan that the article, should it survive, should be closely watched for wp:blp, wp:npov, and wp:aww issues.   user:j    (aka justen)   08:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Problem is, one of those "reviews" is the forword to one of the two books and the other reviews are posted on blogs, not generally considered to be reliable sources. And publishing two books commercially is nothing particularly special for an academic. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment We've had a poster on the talk page of his bio and his book, a grad student in Canada who seems to know quite a bit about him although clearly thought she was taking part in some sort of discussion group, who I tried to get to provide some published reviews but so far she has simply mentioned him being evaluated by various academics but with no specifics. I've posted to both talk pages again requesting that as she seems to know academics who know about him, that she finds us some published reviews as so far no one has been able to find anything except stuff on the web. Doug Weller (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget, the two books aren't even in his field of study. He's a linguist/psychologist, not a professional historian. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per many Persian source like alarabiya and iran newspaper^{this is the mirror of them main article unfortunatly search button wasn't working in the main website} radiozamane and many others like bbc and voa --Mardetanha ^talk 08:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:PROF per Nsk92's analysis, and clearly fails WP:BIO as well. Claim seems to rest on whether his views pass something akin to WP:FRINGE. Alex Bakharev & Pmanderson's contrasting views seem to get to the crux of the matter. I would be much more sympathetic to Alex Bakharev's position (that a balanced article would allow a reader to evaluate the charge his work is propaganda rather than scholarship) if the article wasn't such uncritical puffery. Hagiography brings me down on Pmanderson's side. Pete.Hurd (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's helpful to consider the state of the article, unless you consider it so bad it's best to start again. If Kaveh Farrokh is noteable enough for an article, even if it's because of him being widely known for espousing fringe theories, then he's noteable enough for an article. If the article is not up to scratch then we have to improve it but we shouldn't delete it just because it's not there yet, unless it's irredemable Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are totally correct, that notability and quality are two separate issues. Notwithstanding, I don't see the value in retaining this biography of a non-notable pundit for the purpose of rebutting propaganda, as useful aas that may be. It seems clear that this article is destined to be a protracted COI, POV problem, The waste of otherwise productive wikipedians effort in chasing down RP sources to fix it weighs in my views, I'm willing to admit that might not be according to guidelines, but I also don't think it tips me from "keep" to "oppose". Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)r
      • I'm rather concerned that you seem to think 'if the article demonstrates the guy is a crank' then we should keep it, even if the guy is non noteable but if the article does not, then we should delete it, even if he's marginally noteable. If this was not what you were trying to say then I apologise but it sure sounds like it even if you feel it wouldn't have changed your decision in this instance. The only question that needs to be addressed in a deletion discussion is (by and large) whether the subject is noteable not what we feel the article should be, not even a bit. Beyond an irredemable article, the question of what the article says about the subject is largely irrelevant* and should be resolved via normal editing. You definitely should not be considering whether or not you feel the article is 'useful to rebut propaganda', especially not in a BLP case. And deleting an article because it's too hard to maintain, when the subject is noteable, is very bad practice. If you are unable to put aside your personal feelings about an article's subject when discussing a deletion, you really, really should NOT be supporting or opposing a deletion. It's not wikipedia's job to rebut propaganda or to ignore people because editors feel they are overhyped (and while not addressed at you, it's also not wikipedia's job to overhype people of no noteability). *Obviously when deciding if someone is noteable, we will often rely primarily on what the article and its sources say to establish the noteability but this is not allowing factors other then noteability to affect our decisions. Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • "I'm rather concerned that you seem to think 'if the article demonstrates the guy is a crank' then we should keep it" well, since that's the exact opposite of the point I was arguing, I think you can probably rest easy.... Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete I don't think it's been sufficiently established that he's noteable. Clearly we don't and shouldn't, have articles on every single person who has been interviewed by the BBC or the History Channel nor on every single peerson who has published a book. If someone's views (including their books) have received significant attention from reliable secondary sources then that person is noteable enough for an article but it's not sufficiently established that this is the case here Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm more notable than this guy! The fact that his books are in Harvard University, UCLA etc libraries does not make him notable (so are my books). Lots of people write academic books. Lots of reviews can be found on the web for books. That's not the criterion for inclusion. He's written a popular history of ancient Persia that Iranians like, but is not treated as greatly significant by scholars. That seems to be it. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:PROF. I don't have any opinion on his views. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete.
  • I have read Shadows in the Desert and it is worse than Lendering said; take for instance, the photos of the Basilica of Maxentius in Rome and the Ardashir palace in Firzabad. They have a superficial similarity, as Farrokh notices, but that is because the Basilica has largely collapsed. There is more nonsense like that. Lendering has been very kind; Farrokh is not a good Iranologist.
  • Even if he were, no Iranologist should have an entry longer than Pierre Briant, today's leading expert in this field. If Farrokh's page stays, I propose to abbridge it and add a link to Lendering's review.
  • If Farrokh is notable because he has appeared on TV, any movie extra deserves a Wiki page.92.67.221.129 (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is a very suspicious vote, the IP is definitely established user with a strong familiarity with wikipedia
    • Any actor/producer/scenarist involved in any movie would be a more appropriate comparison. VG ☎ 12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. In the TV show "Engineering An Empire: The Persians" he was interviewed along with four other professors/researchers. Only two of them, Patrick_Hunt and Abbas_Alizadeh have bios on Wikipedia, and those two are definitely more notable than Farrokh. So, participation in that show is a marginal argument for Farrokh's notability at best. The other claimed interviews on VOA & BBC are not cited, so it's hard to judge their relevance. Besides, the article does not mention any of these to argue for his notability. VG ☎ 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF, but the question of whether he is a notable author (with one notable publication, not the four claimed) may qualify him. I suppose being a pseudoIranologist suppurted by the present Iranian government may be adequate notability, as per Trofim Lysenko; not as a scientist or author, but as an example of state pseudoscience. Alternatively, move to his book title, per WP:BLP1E. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • • Comment Farrokh is anti-goverment, that's simply ridiculous. The official policy in Iran is even sometimes against everything before Islamic Iran. The current accepted version of history by Islamic Government of Iran is not pro-preIslamic Iran. The official school textbooks support this idea that Iran history starts and ends with Islam and pre-Islamic Iranian kings and dynasties were bunch of cruel tyrants.--Larno (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Nsk92's analysis. In addition, Kaveh Farrokh does not have any articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). You can check this from ISI Web of Knowledge (link). ISI Web of Knowledge covers high-impact journals with powerful tools such as cited reference searching. ISI Web of Knowledge gives the clue of notibility of an author (his/her articles and citations given to his/her articles). For Kaveh Farrokh, the ISI search gives nothing. E104421 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment But his article says "has contributed articles to internationally recognized academic journals such as the International Journal of the Sociology of Language " -- journals plural (but for some reason only one is mentioned, perhaps because there are no more?). Let's see what that was -- here [18] "Iranian Nationality and the Persian Language, by Shahrokh Meskoob / Farokh, Kaveh 117" - if I understand that correctly, he's written a one page review of Meskoob's book (I've checked, Meskoob wrote a book by that name). It wouldn't look quite so good if the article actually linked there and said it was a review. Doug Weller (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete and recommend the keep voters at least TRY to read the policies on notability and verifiability. In order to be notable, they need to meet the requirement at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. The fact that they've had a book published is not enough, especially considering the "reviews" are completely outside of WP:RS. He's not in Google news. A handful of websites and one TV appearance does not notability make. Hell, I've been on TV more than this guy. The implication he had something to do with the History channel isn't born out by the channel website OR the link given. The so-called "mentions" and "he's worked for VOA and BBC" boil down to him doing an interviewing someone and I can't find any link on the BBC that mentions him directly at all. Without a lot more verifiability of the sources at hand and some real coverage, I can't see him as notable. His views don't really matter if he can't meet the guideline. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment : I think the criteria of General notability guideline have to be considered here .The supporters of deleting , swing between two groups of criteria : when they want to devalue the person's publication , they refer to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria, and say "he is a popular historian and not academic" : if he is popular that means he is notable ! WP:GNG says :If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic I think all the proofs that has presented by deletion supporters in devaluation of Farrokh as a scientific historian or a representative of Iranian nationalist interpretations of Near Eastern history, shows the fact that he is notable or to be more percise by Wikipedia:Notability (people) Basic criteria:

  A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject

  .
  I think if the deletion supporters are skeptical of his scientific value , they can argue on tagging him as "academic" or "Iranologists" ; but not to delete the whole entry .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As per Google scholar and interviewed by news agencies, seems to be notable. BTW, the kerfuffle in this same page, from both sides in two days, shows that a relatively large stock of attention is going to him.--Raayen (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Reliable and verifiable sources provided in this article satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• comment Sorry for the long comment but the article should stay for many reasons: 1) Author is notable enough and endored by Richard Frye, who is literally the most respected Iranologist. 2) Author is well known in Iranian and Persian media. For example his articles have been translated in several newspapers. His name comes up 22,800 times in google [19] 3) Author's book has received reviews which should make it notable for those interested in the subject.The author has gotten his fair share of reviews here[20].

1)

"This beautifully illustrated book will no doubt serve as a useful companion for all those interested in the military history of the pre-Islamic Middle East... Useful maps, photography and color plates make this a handsome and desirable volume; it will be of interest to students and scholars alike." -Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, University of Edinburgh (Department of Classics)

2)

"... a book for all who have ever been curious about the 'other' view on Persia, not from the Western standpoint rooted in Greece, but from the traditions of the Persians themselves... Meticulously researched and documented... " -Patrick Hunt, Stanford University (Classics)

3)

"In this beautifully illustrated book, Dr. Kaveh Farrokh narrates the history of Persia from before the first empires, through their wars with East and west to the fall of the Sassanians." -Paul Houston, 300spartanwarriors.com

4)

"Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War is perhaps on of the finest books that has been produced from Western publishing houses, in this case Osprey Publishing... For the first time, we see a clearly written history book that outlines the relationship between these Iranian achievements to the wars that took place between the Greco-Roman world and ancient Persia...this book draws on excellent research that has received little mention; not to mention previously un-translated Greco-Roman historical sources." -Professor Nikoloz Kacharava, MD, PhD, The University of Georgia in Tbilisi, Member of Academy of Sciences in Georgia, Active Member of New York Academy of Sciences

5)

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh's "Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War," is the definitive work in the field. This Osprey Publishing effort combines the scholarship of Dr. Edwin Yamauchi's "Persia and the Bible" and Dr. Lindsay Allen's "The Persian Empire" with a readability accentuated by beautiful maps and photography which bring academic data and precise historical analysis into play with the majestically artistic. Put simply, it is a masterpiece and reference work which will stay on the shelf of the interested generalist and specialized scholar for decades to come. -Mark Dankof, Republic Broadcasting Network

6)

For the first time in the field of Iranian studies a hardcover book...that is truly on par with the ones...about Greece and Rome has been published... Dr. Farrokh gives a complete narration of events covering the entire span of Persia's existence... But above all, there are NEW discoveries reiterated and some unraveled by Farrokh himself, such as new aspects of the impact that Persian architecture had on Gothic Europe, new details about Sassanian Aryan knighthood investitures, as well much more. -Maziyar Talaforush, The Persian Mirror

7)

"...those with an interest in this period of history or the military will find it an invaluable resource. Indeed, those pursuing degrees associated with these fields may find It on their required reading lists." -Timothy Baghurst, The Traveler

. There are many more personal biographies in Wikipedia that are less prominent and the nominators for this article are battling in several articles with respect to ancient Iranian history. Thus Farrokh's viewpoint was opposed by the nominator and he brought the issue to deletion here. I would like to simply mention for example the disagreement with Dr. Farrokh here with regards to the nominator for deletion: [21]. The issue seems more personal than academic. Why else should another person like Jona Lendering have a website when she has made common mistakes that were corrected throughout the years of his website. It seems there is a double standard here. Any other person who was interviewed by BBC, VOA, History channel on Achaemenid matters and who has written two books on the subject and who works in the very little known field of Iranian studies would have stayed. I believe the issue is personal. --Nepaheshgar 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nepaheshgar, I agree with you that some people here seem to be way too emotionally involved. And although this may involve some of the "delete" voters, many of the latter are people that have not been involved in any of the debates that you mention and only give rational, moderate comments (Pete Hurd, DGG -an inclusionist if ever there was one-, Nsk92, and others including myself, I think). And I don't think they care one way or another about Farokh's views, only about creating a good encyclopedia. The arguments to keep this article are among the flimsiest I have seen in most AfD debates up till now. Wow, his book got reviewed on Amazon.com!! By a member of the New York Academy of Sciences (and an active one at that!) Sorry if I am becoming sarcastic, but up till now nobody has come up with a reliable, independent, and veriable source establishing notability. If you want to sway people like those I just listed before, all you need is one or two good sources and I am certain they will immediately revert their votes to keep. If all the people yelling "he's notable, I say so" just spend 10% of their total effort on finding sources, we would already have had them. The fact that we haven't, I gingerly suggest, probably indicates that there aren't any. --Crusio (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Crusio, what do you think of all those comments on Amazon? Can they be used? We don't have any sources or context for them, a bit like quotes from critics of a play.

Okay I have been in Wikipedia for a while. How about 22,800 hits in Persian google? [22]What is important is that his book is notable enough in the field of Iranian studies. It has been reviewed by Professors from Harvard(Richard Frye), and Professors from Stanford, Edinburgh and etc. I can show you a person who is not "notable", is not a doctor in the field of history, but has a page Jona Lendering because they run a website and have a book. I think there is more than a double standard here. It is important to note that the field of "Iranian studies" is not noteable in the West so we can not expect him to become noticeable like Michael_Jordan. I note the people that reviewed the book and gave comments also have a Wikipedia page Patrick Hunt, Richard Frye. Again I do not think we should expect anyone from the field of Iranian studies to be noteable when probably 99% of the people would not even know such a field exists. The number of people in the West who are doing research and teaching in the field of ancient Iranian studies is probably around 40. I think it is an asset to Wikipedia to introduce these people and their works. --Nepaheshgar 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note this does not mean I want Jona Lendering to be deleted either. Specially since anyone studying in such a narrow field is important and will probably never become noteable. I think the proportion of notability should correspond to the subject matter (the very small field of ancient Iranian studies). --Nepaheshgar 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot compare an Iranologist with Michael Jordan, nor should we. But you refer to reviews by people from Stanford and such. All I have seen up till now is blog-type stuff and a foreword. Thare not independent, verifiable sources. As for the Persian Ghits, English Ghits do not carry weight in an AfD and I don't see why it should be different in this case. Are there any Iranian newspapers that published articles about Farrokh? That would be helpful. As for other people that may be even less notable and still have a WP article, I don't think that indicates a double standard. It just means nobody has gotten around bringing those articles to AfD yet. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... Thanks for trying to discuss this in a more measured way than all that yelling above :-) --Crusio (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict... Concerning adapting notability standards to the size of a field, that is what WP:PROF does. For instance where citations are being counted. A mathematician, from a field where citation rates are low, can be found notable with an amount of citationsthat would be considered laughable for a neuroscientist, from a field with many more publications and much higher citation rates. But everybody has to adhere to the reliable, verifiable, independent, sources.... --Crusio (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay but the Amazon link should not be considered a blog as far as I know[23]. And it has the review by the Professor in Stanford. And I don't think it is valid to challenge the foreward of his book by Richard Frye unless we have evidence that Kaveh Farrokh wrote it. I think there is a minor pedujice here. I believe we should give the benefit of the doubt that the reviews in Amazon (I am talking about the product review and not the Amazon user/buyer's review) and the foreward to the book are valid. I understand the issue with blogs but do you think somebody blogged a Professor from Stanford in the book of Dr. Farrokh in the Product review (where users can not access). There is an 'Etelaa'at issue(widely circulating newspaper in Iran) which published a translation of Dr. Farrokh's article and gave a brief biography on him. --Nepaheshgar 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the book review by Professor. Richard Frye [24]. As you can see this is not in a blog either. If Professor Richard Frye considers it a good book and a Professor. uses the book in University of Toronto, on Achaemenid matters, then it is not just a random book, but a noted book in Academia. --Nepaheshgar 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As per Nepaheshgar's strong arguments. There's a double standard all right - it appears that some people are taking issues with this author's notability, based on personal preference or possibly his nationality. --AlexanderPar (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  What strong arguments? He wrote a book which had good reviews?? VG ☎ 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe 1) VOA/BBC/History Channel interviews 2) Book reviews not from some authors but top experts of the field of history like Richard Frye and other authors mentioned 3) Articles he wrote that have been translated in Persian newspapers like Ete'laat (very widely known newspaper). 4) Books being used by students in Western universities[This is an excellent well-illustrated survey of an important period, useful for students and a general readership alike. It deals not only with military matters, but also more broadly with political developments in Persia. My students have consulted it with profit." -Geoffrey Greatrex, University of Ottawa. [25]. 5)The non-notability of Iranian studies makes it is an important field. --Nepaheshgar 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the book review by Professor. Richard Frye [26]. --Nepaheshgar 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go over this again, his appearances on TV have already been debated to death (above), and determined to be marginal towards establishing his notability. You don't seem to have understood Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). I take it you want to claim #7 with his TV/radio appearances, i.e. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I don't think this is the case with one TV show where he was one of 5 experts, and some interviews on radio. VG ☎ 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this needs to weighted against the relative non-notability of the field of Iranian studies. For example a positive foreward by Richard Frye who has read and reviewed the book should be taken into account in porportion to the unknown field of Iranian studies. [[27]] --Nepaheshgar 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If the issue is credibility, I believe Prof. Richard Nelson Frye's endorsement of Farrokh's second book should be enough support for Farrokh's credibility, as Prof. Frye is an authority in Iranian Studies or Iranology. And as Nepaheshgar mentioned above, there are enough endorsement by other notable expert in the field. Also his appearance on History Channel as expert on Achamenid military is another evidence and support. As for notability of Farrokh, there are mention and appearance in English and Persian speaking media like VOA, BBC, Iranian established newspaper (Ettelaat) and such. The field of Iranain Studies in the West is narrow and there are a few dozen well-known scholars and Farrokh is one of them. Shahrbaraz (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Frye's introduction is not a book review. No one has yet found a published book review. Doug Weller (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this one by Fred Rhodes? Khoikhoi 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the whole review [28] I think it was in this magazine [29]. Not an academic review. Doug Weller (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One endorsement for a book from another academic does not make him notable, even if that other academic is the leading figure in the field. I see fairly new accounts here that !vote for the first time in an AfD expressing strong endorsements. I assume good faith, but the same tenuous arguments are repeated ad nauseam. VG ☎ 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Doug. True it is a foreward and foreward is a higher mention than a book review. But the book is being reviewed in the foreward if you read the whole thing[[30]]. So technically the book has been read, reviewed and commended by Richard Frye and he has praised the book in the foreward. Again Richard Frye of Harvard is the top expert in the field (not just one of the experts but first among equals, specially with regards to the Sassanid era). The field of Iranian studies is non-noteable in the West and virtually no one knows about it. So the matter of attention and notability should be with respect to the relatively miniscule size of the field itself. You won't find 10000's of reviewers and forewards and commendations because there is only a handful of Professors in the field! Note, lets say there is a field called Pokemon studies and there is only 50 Professors and historians in it. Then one review and commendation by the top Pokemon expert should be enough to make it noticeable in the field of Pokemon studies. --Nepaheshgar 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment No, you would never expect a publisher to include a critical forward. A forward is not 'higher' than a book review. And Persian studies and Assyriology are definitely well known in the West. Doug Weller (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Persian studies and Assyrian studies are two different field although they overlap. By mentioning them together, you can not cover the fact that Persian studies is a miniscule field relative to Assyrian studies. They are just like Math and Chemistery in terms of relationship, they overlap but they are different fields. Assyrian studies is much more developed field. Persian studies with regards to Sassanid and Achaemenid era, is not. Specially the Sassanid era contains no more than a handful of experts and Richard Frye is the top expert in the Sassanid era. A foreward from Richard Frye (he was not forced), a top living expert on the Sassanid era, and one of handful of experts in Sassanid studies. So a foreward which he accepted to write (the publisher did not force him!) after he read the book, is higher than a book review. He has read the book and commended it and wrote it foreward on it and in the foreward he commends the book. No one (publisher or the author) forced him to do so. And he is one of the few handful of experts in the Sassanid field. Statistically speaking we should not expect more than this given the relatively few people who know about the Sassanid era and the fact Sassanids (despite being one of the two super-powers of their own time for 400 years) get no more than a paragraph in most high-school world history textbooks (which shows the relative anonymity of the field). --Nepaheshgar 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that academics would agree with you about the statistical chance of a review, and as for the size of the field, see [31] -- just in one country, "there are many British scholars, young and old, who are working on academic research relating to Iran in a number of disciplines".Doug Weller (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay lets look at the website you mentioned [32]. Now which one of these are experts in the Sassanid era? Name them. Probably no more than one or two. And you are right in one country(Britian which is known to have a stronger Iranian studies program), there are just a handful of people and probably just one or two of them could be Sassanid experts(which ones in the page? I know Melville and Curtis are for sure not Sassanid experts). And of course none of the people there are on the caliber of Richard Frye. --Nepaheshgar 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Bosworth (Post-Islamic Iran expert), Tapper (Safavid Expert), Stronach (Achaemenid Archeology expert), Ali Ansari (20th/21th century), Robert Hillenbrand (Persian-Islamic era Minature (started from the 12th century A.D. way after Sassanids). So where are the Sassanid experts on the caliber of Frye in that page? Just name them. The fact is the top Sassanid expert in the field recommended the book, and wrote a foreward for it (willingfully). Your argument with regards to Richard Frye was that "The publisher would not publish it if it were negative"! This is what you wrote: Look at what you exactly wrote: you would never expect a publisher to include a critical forward.. Where-as a unbiased person who knows the field would say " The top Sassanid expert read the book, reviewed it and wrote it foreward to it and commended the book". So this shows the political nature of this nomination. And obviously you can't name more than a handful (3-4) experts in the Sassanid field that is comparable to Frye and he is again the first among equals. I believe the statement like: you would never expect a publisher to include a critical forward. shows that this article's nomination is in bad faith. So obviously if Richard Frye, the top Sassanid expert had called the book nonsense, you would have used it here. But now you are saying that Richard Frye's statement is useless, because the publisher would not have published it if it was critical! Instead we should focus on why the top Sassanid expert has given a high mark on a book which covers the Sassanids. And by the way some of those names were not from Britian like Stronach who is an American. So again, there are a few Sassanid era experts, and Richard Frye is top expert. He has given the book a high mark, wrote a foreward for it (willingly and was not forced) and we can not expect 500 reviews/comments when there is really a handful of experts on the Sassanids in the world.--Nepaheshgar 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is straying off course. I don't know whether Frye is the foremost expert in this field and frankly, I don't care. A foreword is selective. No author will ask someone who is critical about his work to write a foreword. If the foreword turns out to be not to your liking, you throw it out and invite someone else. In short, a foreword is NOT INDEPENDENT (how often do I have to repeat this). PLEASE, one independent verifiable source, is that too much to ask?? --Crusio (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He is the foremost expert in the Sassanid field. And there is no more than 10 or so people that are experts in the field. Already, there was a dozen reviews which was posted in the Amazon site from a Professor in Torono, another in Stanford and etc. I believe you are being selective. Else Amazon is not a blog. Lets consider the situation. Person X asks the top expert in the field Y to review his book and if he would like to write it a foreward to it and Y gives it a good review and writes a good foreward. That is all that is needed and the argument stops there. The rest of the stuff about selectiveness and etc. does not hold water. The question is: "Did the top independent expert in the field of Sassanid era endorse book". The answer is yes. Did he do it by his own will independently? Yes. Now you are saying: "If he did not endorse it, then X would not have published it". That is a different argument and we will never know if that is the case or not since Y already endorsed it. In other words, the willingful endorsement of the top expert in Sassanid studies establishes some academic credibility. Specially when the field of Sassanid studies narrows down to just a dozen people or so in the West and none of them really on the Caliber of Frye (possibly one guy in Germany whose name I do not recall right now). --Nepaheshgar 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Frye could be a Nobel Prize winner, for all I care. Notability is not inherited (cannot find the appropriate wikilink right now) and nobody, not Frye, not Einstein, can bestow notability. A foreword is not independent, end of story. --Crusio (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, it says: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits"? Richard Frye and Kaveh Farrokh are not related. The argument is simple. You will hardly find 5 experts on the Sassanid era throughout the world. So if one of them willingfully accepted to read the book, review the book and write a foreward for the book, then that should be taken into account in light of the paucity of the number of experts specific to the Sassanid era. We are talking about the Academic merit of the book. Frye the top expert commends the book and endorses it. He was not forced to write a foreward. You are claiming the foreward is not independent since if the forward sucks, the person would not include it in the book. But that whole else statement does not hold with this regard, since the foreward was good. Instead one should concentrate on the if part, "The foreward was good". Anyhow this argument is going circular, but I believe if the unbiased reads consider these simple facts: 1) There are only a few people in the field of Sassanid studies and the top person is Richard Frye. 2) The lack of people in the subject (which obviously makes no money) dictates that one would not find dozens of reviews on the book. 3) Independent Professors have also commended the book although none of them Sassanid experts like Frye[33]. 4) The person is well known in Persian language and some of his articles have been published in widely circular newspapers in Iran like 'Etelaa'at. 5) Finally a review of the nominator's edit shows that the issue is beyond Encyclopedic concerns: [34] --Nepaheshgar 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see some of the top experts in the field of Iranology [35]. Only Richard Frye is mentioned as a Sassanid era expert. --Nepaheshgar 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see some of the top experts in the field of Iranology [36]. Only Richard Frye is mentioned as a Sassanid era expert. Some people want an academic review. The top guy qualified to write a review instead writes a foreward and recommends the book. Then, they say this is not acceptable since if the review/foreward was bad, he would not have published! (that is hypothetical situation and it does not exit). It doesn't matter though since the review/foreward was good and no one forced the top expert in the field to write a good review/foreward of the book. And Doug could not find a single Sassanid expert (let alone on the caliber of Frye) in the whole of Britain on the caliber of Frye and that is why I said the field is unknown and we can not expect to find 50 reviews. The ones posted on Amazon and the foreward by Frye in porportion to the minisculeness of the field is what should count.--Nepaheshgar 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : Why Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria? Why not WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means, any way of reaching notability is allowed, no need to stick to WP:PROF. But we still need verifiable independent sources under those alternative guidelines. --Crusio (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The nature of "verifiable independent sources" would be different if we use the alternative criteria . The whole logic of deletion supporters is based on on this claim that Dr.Farrokh is not a scientist and is a representative of false Iranian nationalism :say , if their clam is right , still it shows that he is notible . Just look at the whole list of Pseudoarchaeology , Pseudohistory and Pseudoscientists. If you have problem with tagging the article , then why you insist on deleting it ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice straw man argument; you're grossly misrepresenting practically all the arguments for deletion raised here. Arthur Rubin mentioned that Farrokh might be notable as a psedoscientist, but he used that as a marginal argument for keeping, not for deleting this article. VG ☎ 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well , we are talking on notability : we are not talking on tagging the article . By WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE criteria , all of the google hits can be considered as notability important ( In contrast of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• ???Dear Alborz Fallah, WP:PEOPLE explicitly states under "invalid criteria": "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits". WP:GNG Does not even mention Google. Can you explain this perhaps in some more detail? Sorry for being dense, only just had my morning coffee... :-) --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You mean this sentence :

  Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics... When using Google to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.

  Then what's the so called quality of search engine hits ? by Search engine test and Notability:examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. Then again by WP:GOOGLE : [for] Notability, Confirm whether it is covered by independent sources or just within its own circles. OK ! then articles that reject the person , like this one , or this one, are valid , becuase they are neither from the authour's circle , nor dependent to him ( they are against him !) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In brief , the difference between criteria of sources of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria versus sources of WP:PEOPLE is in that in the lather (WP:PEOPLE) , the negative views counts , but in the former (Notability (academics)) , the negative views does not count ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on the 'reviews' from Amazon - these are actually from the publisher's website [37] and
  are basiclly publicity blurbs. One is from Paul Houston who runs his own website. Mark Dankof is a minor radio broadcaster from a minor rightwing American radio network (look him up). Timothy Baghurst is an assistant professor in the Health Science, Kinesiology, Recreation and Dance Department of the University of Arkansas. This smacks of desperation to me and doesn't show notabililty. This list was in the article as 'reviews' and I've added a secton heading to make the source clear, but it shouldn't be there at all. T

Nice try, but Random House (the website you`re linking to) is not the publisher, it`s just an online book store, the reviews in question are originally from Amazon. The reviewers of Kaveh Farokh`s work also include respected acadamics like Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Professor Geoffrey Greatrex, two notable historians and archaeologists - as well as Professor Nikoloz Kacharava and Professor Patrick Hunt --CreazySuit (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• comment, cleary fails WP:PROF, but since he is the author of a work arguably passing WP:BK, we can easily keep this as a redirect. Redirects are cheap. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable in general, not as academic. The above has sufficient documentation for general notability. The lawyering against are becoming additional evidence for the worth of keeping this article too under wp:common. --Buridan (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Buridan, that's one of the funniest remarks I have read in an AfD in a long time! --Crusio (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - everything has been said already. Even Richard Nelson Frye has (positively) commented his works. Tājik (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • you mean his work (singular), which already has an article, at present not under discussion. This isn't sufficient for a biography article. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong KeepBefore anyone elso spews their agenda of nonsense here, consider the fact that Farrokh is more than what he seems. This message below is from the talk page of Battle of Opis, and shows how ridiculus some users are, when trying to suppress the knowledge of good sources concerninig Persian history...

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh being an author, and not an academic is nonsense, notice its 'DR.' and this is what it says on the inside flap of the back cover of his SHADOWS IN THE DESERT book, I cant find it on the net because GOOGLEBOOKS only shows the outside of it, and apparently this text is inside, and this information might even be on Wikipedia about him, AND THE EDITOR OF THE BOOK IS PHD. RICHARD NELSON FRYE, sound familiar?, 'Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has been researching the military history and technology of Persia for two decades. He obtained his PhD in 2001 from the University of British Columbia, where he specialized in the spread of Persian langauges. He has given lectures and seminars at the University of British Columbia and has written articles for various journals. He is the author of Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 (2005). He also acts as a historical advisor and expert for film and documentary, working on projects including the film Cyrus the Great and a History Channel documentary on the Persian Empire.'

You have no way of knowing that I did not make this up, but what you can do is go to your local BARNES & NOBLES OR BORDERS, and look for the copy of it, so this disproves the notion that he is just a good author. The point of this message is to take out the 'supposed' nationalistic views, [which are patriotic mostly, which some users have trouble differenciating,] expressed on Farrokh's page, and to include reliable sources concerning his academic state, if he was not notable he would not go on TV and do other notable things, and he has not given 'some' lectures and seminares, but a lot of them by now, Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

CommentDoing a bit more checking, the 'Professor David Khoupenia' mentioned in the article seems to have been awarded his professorship by an editor some time ago, he is, as the footnote correctly states, Dr. David Khoupenia, who appears to be a Georgia physican working with an American firm in the field of herbal remedies. He gave Farrokh a couple of photographs which he used in Shadows, so I'm guessing at least an acquaintance, and no reason to think he review carries any authority. One of the Amazon blurbs is by a "Professor Nikoloz Kacharava", whose existence I can't verify, although I discovered I could join the 'New York Academy of Sciences' which the blurb says he belongs to just by paying for membership. I can't see a reason to be take this one seriously either without knowing who he is. Doug Weller (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the notoble historians and archeologists such as Professors Patrick Hunt, Richard Frye, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Geoffrey Greatrex who have given positive feedback to Kaveh Farrokh and his work? You don't pick and choose whose review, or which reviewer, to take issues with. Bottomline is that Kaveh Farokh is a notble author, or else his work wouldn't be praised by the best in the feild of Iranology, and his expertise would not be seeked by media giants like VOA, BBC, The History Channel. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• As has been explained ad nauseam here, if this guy really is so notable, then how come nobody seems to be able to come up with references? Although many people have searched, nobody has come up with a source for the "reviews" that are listed on Amazon and other booksellers pages. That probably means that the publisher just asked those people for a kind tidbit of comment. Happens all the time and most people oblige, but it doesn't mean much. Such kind of blurbs are not "reviews" and are not independent. Nowhere else on WP are such blurbs taken as evidence of notability and I don't see why this should be the case here. --Crusio (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's simply your opinion, nothing more. Amazon.com call them "editorial reviews", they're therefore verfible, and were most likley published in print. Classic history is not movie buesines, a great historian like Richard Frye would no give a positive review to a work he doesn't belive in. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So if they were published in print, where are they? How come nobody can find them? How come you're not telling us where they are? "Most likely" is just speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Keep Merge and redirect to the Shadows entry as suggested above by Dab. The author fails notability standards for scholars.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I added info to refute the claim that he has won no awards.--Zereshk (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  The Golden Lioness Award, which scores exactly 196 Google hits for me, sounds more like a club of exiled Iranians artists bestowing honors on each other. No evidence that non-Iranians (or Iranians in Iran for that matter) put any value on those awards. VG ☎ 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

These questions should be adressed first: 1- How large is the population of non-Iranians who could be elligible for such awards? YYou know the anser. Only a few non-Iranians put valuable efforts for Iranian studies 2- why an award which is allegedly issued by Iranians is less worth? Why one which is issued by a non-Iranian to a non-Iranian is more worth? This is double standard. 3- How many of 70 million Iranians have earned such an award, if Iranians are so generous to award each other with these awards? Sorry by I do not think that your arguments are valid.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Here's a review [38] not mentioned above I don't believe: By Fred Rhodes [39] in The Middle East Magazine. Persian Golden Lioness Awards are notable and are touted by the recipients in their bios, such as Azar Nafisi [40] [41] and Hassan Sattar performed at the 2nd annual awards [42]. This author is definitely notable. One cannot expect that a notable historian would pen a forward for a book he does not respect. Osprey Publishing [43] is not a self-publishing house but a military history publisher. Reviews on Amazon that are written by people who are themselves notable can certainly "count." There are many authors that like to write reviews of the latest books. This book "Shadows" is fairly new (2007/2008) and may not have yet generated a lot of peer review. In fact much of it (the reviews and criticism) may likely not even be in English. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here too is a negative review : [44] and ah yes! now I see it. The author's opinion (a Jona Lendering at his blog /and what makes him more notable than Farrokh?) does not agree with Farrokh regarding the Cyrus Cylinder. Furthermore, this opinion is the very one being advanced at the article by the author of this delete request. The existence of this negative review is evidence in itself of Farrokh's notability. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per DGG, Paul B & others. Doesn't really meet WP:PROF. But media exposure does go towards notability, and he only seems to have moved into the military history field since 2005, so may become more notable as time passes. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the book article, per dab, seems the most sensible option. We'll have the data in the article easily accessible in the history then if it seems appropriate to reconstruct the bio article in the future.John Z (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Tundrabuggy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (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.