Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Keshvari

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. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Keshvari

Ahmad Keshvari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Notability can't be established. The sources referenced are unreliable and operated by or made to promote the Iranian theocracy. I had placed sourcing tags on the page, but these were summarily removed by the article creator, without any improvements made to the article's sourcing.[1] An article under the same name had previously been speedily deleted.[2] The article creator has a long pattern of bias in favor of the Iranian church authorities (see contribs). Anders Feder (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Ahmad Keshvari is one of important Iranian commander and he was famous pilot during Iran-Iraq war. In Iran and several word media, make a lot of multimedia about his life. There is a movie about his life in IMDB. Also, in Iran created a film about his life that known as Simorgh. This film was showed in a lot of word TV channels. So, he can notable and his article could be keep. I can correct the article structure and add new source.AliAkar (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If there are any reliable sources, why did you not use them in the article, instead of just summarily removing the refimprove tag?[3] An Iranian state propaganda movie is hardly a reliable source.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:Flight Wing is the name of the book that reflects the life of Ahmad Keshvari which presented at the 26th Tehran International Book Fair. The International Book Fair is important Book Fair in the word and participate a lot of people from the word. In the book, Ahmad Keshvari was introduced as a prominent Sacred Defense pilot.AliAkar (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@AliAkar: Do you have a link to this book on Amazon or Google Books or some other credible book store? I was only able to find this page, where it is described under the heading: "Life of Sacred Defense pilot accessible to children at TIBF", i.e. it's a children's indoctrination book. The "Tehran International Book Fair" is held by the "Iran Cultural Fairs Institute". According to its homepage, "The institute has been commissioned by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to stage a number of cultural events, particularly the landmark annual Tehran International Book Fair (TIBF)..." So this is a "book fair" sanctioned by the Iranian state for promoting pro-government literature. Is this your reliable source?--Anders Feder (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:The Tehran Book fair is a cultural event has turned into a landmark, momentous book fair in Middle East and Asia after 27 editions in a row. It is a international book fair and has millions of visitors inspect the fair every year. Yes, this book fair is the most significant cultural event in Iran but another country participates. Hassan Ahmadi, the writer of Flight Wing, is a children’s writer but has been written in a fictional way for its young readers and not this book for children. Ahmadi is a story writer and journalist and has written various books for children and young adults.AliAkar (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter how many supporters the Iranian media control ministry have visiting their book fair? Even if 10 billion people believe in a lie it is still just a lie. According to The Guardian, the publishers allowed on the fair are strictly controlled by the state censorship authorities. And citing a fictional book for indoctrinating children into supporting the Iranian military as a source is a farce.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:Do you study the link that you sent for me?!!! I say about this source: The Guardian. Please attention: But Tehran's international book fair, held annually in the first half of May, attracts half a million visitors per day. The figure is more than the number of people who visit Frankfurt Book Fair, which claims to be the biggest in the world, over its entire duration. This sentence prove my opinion.AliAkar (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@AliAkar: Why are you quoting that? As I wrote above: who cares how many people are attending the Iranian state's book fair?--Anders Feder (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@AliAkar:who cares! It had half a million visitors per day/Who cares, more than the number of people who visit Frankfurt Book Fair/Who care, The Guardian care to it/ who cares, a lot of publisher from the world participated on. Who care that you don't care?

That's not what I asked. Even if the whole universe worshipped your ayatollah, it still wouldn't make lies turn true.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: In Wikipedia we must report the reliable source and me and you are not responsible for judge about the true or lie. You say just your reason about Tehran Book fair and don't say any thing about your idea about Wikipedia rules. This article is a notable because several multimedia, TV programe, and website write about this person. The notability not limited but a topic can notable in one country or many. Therefore, see the article and say about the Wiki rules not about Iran Book Fair.AliAkar (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@AliAkar:If you don't want me to "say about Iran Book Fair", then why did you bring it into the discussion? And you are not "responsible for judge about the true or lie" either. A load of propaganda hogwash from the despotic Iranian regime does not amount to a proof of anything, including notability.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: You have personal problem with Iran and just sentence about this country and you say your idea and this is not public idea about a country. I bring a sentence from the link that you sent to me until tell to you that you did not read your sources.AliAkar (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@AliAkar: It's completely irrelevant what I may have against the Iranian dictatorship. That isn't what is being discussed here. Stick to the subject of establishing the notability of the individual the article is about, or concede that he isn't notable. You bringing in random, unrelated sentences from some link doesn't tell me anything about anything.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:You started the discussion about Tehran Book Fair and then started discussion about policy of Iran and I just answer to you. Please ask this question from you. You changed the discussion way. I wrote my reasons about notability and put valuable source for you but don't attention to them. Also I edited the article but again you don't attention.AliAkar (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop wasting everybody's time by stating things that are obviously false. You brought the "book fair" into the discussion, not me: [4] If you don't think the book fair is relevant for establishing notability, then don't bring it into the discussion.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I bring a source about introduction of a book in the Tehran Book Fair but you express your idea about the book fair of Tehran and Iran policy.AliAkar (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And it's perfectly fine that I did. The fact that the book fair is for propaganda books is very relevant with respect to WP:RELIABILITY.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:Shahed Electronic Publication released multimedia software about Major General Pilot Ahmad Keshvari. Multimedia software with name of Major General Pilot Ahmad Keshvari includes 245 pages of texts, 117 pictures and documents, and 127 minutes of film 380 minutes of audio files.AliAkar (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:Simorgh TV series: In 1992, Iranian television made a series that was about pilots of the western war zone such as Ali Akbar Shiroodi, Ahmad Keshvari, and Soheilian.AliAkar (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep A notable war hero in Iran, article has reliable sources for proof. Although most information is in Farsi, I easily found two reliable sources in English. This is a clear keep. The article does need some work. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ism schism:What are the sources you consider reliable?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources that establish notability: Iran Book News Agency, Tehran Times, Islamic Republic News Agency, Navideshahed, Tebyan, Morteza Aviny, Mashreghnews, are all reliable sources for this biography. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant RS noticeboard discussion. Iran has one of the worst freedom-of-media statuses in the world, being among the eight worst-rated countries by both Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House.[5] Blasphemy law in Iran is used by the clerical authorities to crack down on sources that contradict the state's narratives. For this reason, essentially nothing that comes out of Iran is reliable. Doubly unreliable are sources like Islamic Republic News Agency which are directly funded by the Iranian propaganda ministry.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like the Iranian government, but this isn't a discussion on whether their government is good or bad, it's a discussion on the notability of an Iranian General from the Iraq-Iran War. To be notable, he doesn't have to be known in Western media - he is notable enough by being in Iranian media. And, while you insist that Iranian media could never suffice, I beg to differ. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not relevant whether you think I like the Iranian government. I look forward to your reliable sources from Japan or Taiwan or other non-"Western" places.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder: Could you please focus on the title and watch your language? We are here to discuss something else not to hear editor's opinions about a country. Mhhossein (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: No, I could not, because my language is completely reasonable. If you are offended that the reliability of Iranian media are questioned here, then direct your attention elsewhere.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder Don't mix irrelevant issues here! I never discussed the reliability! I addressed your language! You can discuss related issues in related pages while being polite! Mhhossein (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Sure. I don't disagree with you on that. But I haven't been impolite.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder:But I deem it offensive, because we are not here to judge honesty of some one or any other things.Mhhossein (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: We absolutely are here to judge the honesty of something, because honesty is the whole foundation of reliability.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep One may simply refer to WP:SOLDIER. He was a brigadier General according to the Iran army official website. Simorgh TV series adds weight to the notability. He was very notable among Iranian pilots. Mhhossein (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER isn't even a policy or guideline, it's an essay. And as it says, notability requires "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources," none of which exists for this person. The Simorgh TV series doesn't add anything whatsoever.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice This person doesn't meet WP:GNG. Searches of Google Books, Google Scholar, Questia and High Beam confirm that. Not notable. Plus there appears to be at least some indication that he is a bit of a "hero" of the Iranian Government, and may be mentioned in some types of propaganda for that reason. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:SOLDIER is a rough guide that does not in any way trump WP:GNG. I have taken half a dozen military biographies to FA and am very familiar with the requirements, thanks. Those editors advocating for the retention of this article need to do their due diligence and demonstrate the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" that is necessary to meet GNG. I agree wholeheartedly with Anders, my searches of Google Books & Scholar, Questia and High Beam got zero results (other than this article). Saying "Keep, because WP:SOLDIER" while ignoring GNG is farcical. If you can't back up your vote with reliable sources on a firm policy basis, your vote is virtually worthless... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    That's strange. I ran a Google search and got thousands of hits a plethora of images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    No kidding. I ran a search on "kim kardashian ass" and got millions of hits - what does that tell us?--Anders Feder (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    • All I'll say is that anyone who believes Wikipedia is all about strict adherence to rules (which we don't in fact have, incidentally) is probably in the wrong place. What is actually farcical is pretending that Wikipedia is improved by deleting articles on generals, whatever country they may come from. No opinion is worthless, since opinion is what AfD is all about. And opinion thus far appears to largely be that this gentleman is notable as a general officer, so please don't suggest that your minority opinion is right and the others are "worthless" (presumably because you don't agree with them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
      • IAR is fine. Just say that, and don't hide behind SOLDIER. Where is the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject"? Surely you're not suggesting it's ok to have an article that doesn't meet GNG just because he's allegedly a brigadier? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And it appears that most contributors here agree with me. It's called using common sense to improve the encyclopaedia, as opposed to hiding behind alleged rules to undermine it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
          • By "alleged rules" you must be referring to your citing WP:SOLDIER as a "rule", which is a complete misunderstanding on your part as shown here: [6]. WP:GNG certainly isn't an "alleged rule" - it's a long-standing, consensus-based guideline. Most contributors here does not seem to agree with you at all, but cite other reasons for advocating a keep.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
            • I clearly never said WP:SOLDIER was a rule. And neither is WP:GNG. We don't have rules on Wikipedia. We have guidelines. So no, no misunderstanding on my part. And four other contributors here have also cited WP:SOLDIER as a reason to keep. Try not to misrepresent things just because you're annoyed that others don't agree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
              • I clearly never said that anything was a rule either, nor did anyone else - so the misunderstanding is entirely on your side. The only thing I am annoyed about is your derailing the discussion over some unimportant essay.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
                • To quote you: "WP:GNG certainly isn't an "alleged rule" - it's a long-standing, consensus-based guideline". That implies you think it is a rule! You may think it's an "unimportant essay", but most of the other contributors here would appear to disagree with you, despite your odd claims that it's just me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • It doesn't imply that by any stretch of imagination.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER, a generally recognised standard for military biographies among those of us who write them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Per discussion here, being a general officer is not a standard for notability set by WP:SOLDIER. Multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources are still required per WP:GNG.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What is required most is common sense, not strict adherence to non-existent "rules". See my response in the discussion you cite above. We are here to improve the encyclopaedia and deleting an article on a verified general is certainly not doing that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Necrothesp (WP:SOLDIER). The subject is evidently regarded as a martyr. It is at least verifiable that he was a general (ISNA, January 29, 2012, USA, West "dare not attack" Iran - top commander).- MrX 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage. Seems to be a case of systemic bias. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Clear keep - deletion argument is basically: "Iran is bad. We can't trust anything written by anyone in Iran. All Iranians are therefore non-notable unless someone in the West outside Iran writes about them." This is systematic bias at its worst. The subject is clearly important within Iran and therefore is clearly notable. Yes, caution must be used in sourcing, but that is NOT a sufficient reason for deletion. The sources are certainly reliable enough for basic information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What would be your motive for misrepresenting the argument like that? Who here have suggested that: "All Iranians are non-notable unless someone in the West writes about them"?--Anders Feder (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this: "...essentially nothing that comes out of Iran is reliable."- MrX 03:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: So you are saying that everything that isn't Iranian is "in the West"? Does that include China and North Korea? How about Russia? I wonder how that world map must look.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You asked about motivation and I speculated. The fact that most of us searched for English language sources for this subject and your sweeping dismissal of any Iranian sources, could lead one to believe that there is a Western-centric bias at work here. - MrX 04:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the very goal of creating a reliable encyclopedia is a NATO conspiracy.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are offended, but if you change "the West" to "outsiders" (which is what I meant) it is, IMO, an accurate description of the deletion rationale offered. If this was an American general, no one would think twice about allowing an official government bio. Such a bio would not cover anything negative, but it would still be valid for basic facts. Here, we have multiple bios about the man written by sources with at least some degree of independence from the gov't. No, they probably can't write anything negative, but that doesn't make what they do write untrue, just as it doesn't make a US gov't bio of a general untrue. Does anyone really doubt a book and a TV episode were made about Keshvari? Does anyone really doubt an artist has celebrated him as a "martyr"? His career makes him notable and the fact he is only covered in Iran doesn't change that. It simply means we have to be careful about taking sources at face value, and properly attribute anything that sounds like praise. It doesn't mean we can't have an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Hawkeye7 - he definitely exists, and is notable, but we're suffering from systemic bias. How are we going to build up our information on non-Western entities here unless we step back a trifle and think?Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral but I'd like to comment upon the argument being advanced here by Necrothesp. His position is, simply, that general officers are important enough to include in Wikipedia and that what policies and guidelines such as WP:GNG may say is irrelevant. He says that above:

  "All I'll say is that anyone who believes Wikipedia is all about strict adherence to rules (which we don't in fact have, incidentally) is probably in the wrong place. What is actually farcical is pretending that Wikipedia is improved by deleting articles on generals, whatever country they may come from." (diff)

  and

  "It's called using common sense to improve the encyclopaedia, as opposed to hiding behind alleged rules to undermine it." (diff).

  Here's my question to him: If WP:SOLDIER is such absolute common sense, at least in regard to general officers, why hasn't it been made a policy or guideline? Indeed, why was the consensus in this discussion to leave it as an essay? If it is so common sensical why don't you seek to have it promoted to a policy or guideline rather than having to continue to flog the "Wikipedia has no rules" horse? Frankly, I see that horse most often trotted out when there is a statute or guideline — such as GNG — and an editor is really making an I like it argument in favor of material about which we have no general consensus to include. I have to wonder if you've not shown that analysis to be correct in your edit on this topic here in which you say,

  "And to those of us who agree with WP:SOLDIER it is simply common sense that someone who has reached general, flag or air officer rank (or the equivalent in other walks of life) is notable by virtue of that rank. Otherwise Wikipedia is in danger of degenerating into a list of minor "celebrities" who may have reams written about them on the web by fanboys/girls but who are in fact "notable" for very little beyond being lovers of media exposure and experts in getting it. An encyclopaedia that has many thousands of articles on people like this (with the justification that they have heavy web coverage and therefore "must be notable") and rejects articles on generals and senior civil servants because their achievements aren't drivelled about endlessly on blogs and fansites (and therefore "aren't notable") is no encyclopaedia at all, but just a super-fansite. Frankly, that's not the project I joined and it isn't one I wish to be a part of."

  Blogs and fansites ae not reliable sources, so that part of your argument falls apart because those kinds of sites cannot be used to show an article to be notable. That danger does not exist.

And, per policy, policies and guidelines are the established consensus of the community. To argue in deletion discussions that all general officers, even if they do not meet GNG, are notable is to argue against the already-established consensus of the community that GNG must be satisfied. One thing, however, that you're right about is that in deletion discussions, perhaps more than anywhere else on Wikipedia, IAR plays a part and articles will often be kept which do not satisfy the rules, but that's because of IAR and consensus to go against the rules, not because there are no rules.

To argue as you do that general officers are notable just because they're general officers, without anything more but throwing up "common sense" like waving a crucifix in front of a vampire doesn't do anything to prove that common sense requires that result. It's your bald opinion, buttressed perhaps by the bald opinion of others "who agree with WP:SOLDIER", versus the established consensus of the community that GNG should be satisfied and that SOLDIER does not yet represent the established consensus of the community.

While I'm a firm believer in discussion and consensus and, indeed, IAR, that process is very different than the concept of common sense. That's largely because something asserted as common sense is, unless fully explained and argued for and examined, merely in the eye of the asserter. Indeed, the things which count as common sense here at Wikipedia are generally things which don't draw much opposition: If it's truly common sense, then it shouldn't be hard to form a consensus about it because common sense. The very fact that you're having to argue here and at the Village Pump that it's common sense and the rules should be ignored (or that there are no rules) is a pretty clear indication that it may be common sense in your eyes but that there is little consensus that it is seen as such in general. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I simply have a couple of questions to ask you:

(1) Do you honestly believe that deleting articles on people as senior as general or flag officers or their civilian equivalents is improving the encyclopaedia? Really? Trust me, I'm as in favour of deleting articles on truly non-notable people as much as anyone else is. These people, however, are clearly notable.

(2) If you monitor AfDs on the subject, when's the last time you remember an article on a general or flag officer being deleted? Because I have never, ever, in my years editing Wikipedia, seen one. That, to me, is consensus, whether WP:SOLDIER has been made a guideline or not. Consensus is often reached in AfDs and that is the case with articles on these people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As for (1), I do indeed have some doubt. In peacetime 1-2 star generals — brigadier and major general in the US System — are roughly the equivalent of vice-presidents in a large publicly-traded corporation (e.g. Fortune 500 corporations) and, for the same reason that VP's are not particularly notable, I don't particularly feel that general officers are inherently notable. The organization may be notable, but notability is not inherited. Moreover, I feel even more that way as we move from armies (or other military organizations) of first world countries into those of second and third world countries. As for (2), if that's true — and I'm not doubting you — then that might be a pretty good argument for making WP:SOLDIER a guideline, but I would hope that the reason was that most of them also passed GNG. That's the usual reason for creating a SNG: it's very unusual for a person (or place or thing) with the SNG specific characteristics to not meet GNG. That might very well be the case with general/flag officers, but I don't know. As I said, above, I was more interested in addressing your argument than the merits of this particular case, but if I had a gun put to my head I'd probably !vote "weak keep" with the weak due to the uncertainty about the reliability of the sources. But it wouldn't be just because we can may be able to reliably prove that the guy was a general. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC) PS: I've changed "can" to "may be able to" in the last sentence above because I don't want that to be read as an opinion on my part that the guy status as a general has or has not been reliably established; I've not looked at the sources, so I have no opinion on that issue. — TM 14:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC) PPS: I want to re-emphasize that my objections here are only to Necrothesp's arguments about WP:SOLDIER, common sense, and the notabilty of general officers based upon those arguments, but are not in any way a personal criticism of him as an editor. I've taken a hard look at some of his other edits and positions and all the ones which I've seen have been hard-working and clearly to the benefit of the encyclopedia. He's a mensch and if any of my comments seemed to point to him, personally, and not to his arguments, it was unintended and I regret my sloppy writing. — TM 15:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dynamite. Entire article is a hopeless mass of eye-roller OR and poor grammar, e.g., "His father was a brave man and always resisted against cruelty and also his mother was..." Ugh. Nuke it. Pax 08:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, notable. I'm working on the article. --Z 14:03, 11 February 2015 (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.