Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The English name of the Persian Language

The article likely contains copyright violations (notice anonymous edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_English_name_of_the_Persian_Language&diff=46156322&oldid=45506462] four months after [http://heritage.chn.ir/en/Article/?id=88] was written), does not maintain a NPOV (written as a position paper), and lacks references. --jonsafari 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:Note for closing admin: Vote stacking may have taken place. Please examine closely. - FrancisTyers · 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly merge. It's covered in the first paragraph of Persian people, but not well. That's where this goes. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the two NPOV sentences in the article to Persian language --Xrblsnggt 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge thoroughly pruned down version to Persian language, as per Xrblsnggt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Just about all of the relevant, NPOV information in the article is already found in the Persian language article, nomenclature section. I'm not exactly sure what's mergeable, and if it would help much. --jonsafari 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:*Comment: If there's nothing to merge, delete. Redirect unnecessary, since it's not a likely search term. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect per nomination. - FrancisTyers · 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per above; it is at least gratifying that the traditional English name of the language, rather than a foreign neologism, is preferred here. Smerdis of Tlön 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. --Chris S. 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I dont know why this article poses such a big problem to many. This topic has been the battleground for so many edits, and has been disputed so many many times that it deserves its own article, which by the way can be added to. Having copyvios or lack of sources isn't really a reason to delete an entrie article, according to WP rules. The original source in English appeared in a communique to the Australian Embassy in the 90s, if I recall correctly. The fact that Pejman Akbarzadeh's text is endorsed by CHN should be enough. I cant understand the need for deletion. And it doesnt qualify for deletion according to WP standards anyway.Zereshk 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

:*Comment: Maybe I need to be a little more direct about this. The whole article was copied from another website. If you revert it back to before this copyvio, it would be another copyvio (from Farhangestan's announcement). –jonsafari 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Zereshk. Shervink 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)shervink
• Keep as per Zereshk. Khorshid 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, with minor edits. This does not qualify as OR, it's verifiable, and the POV could use some editing, but is nowhere near deletion-levels. This is a topic considered important enough to warrant an official statement no less than three times in modern Iranian history (once by Reza Shah, once by Mohammad Reza Shah, and now once by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature), and has serious repercussions in the academic community. The page should stay.--Spectheintro 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

:*Comment Why shouldn't it be merged into Persian language ? It seems more appropriate there, the very title suggests prescriptivism. - FrancisTyers · 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::Because of article length. The issue is complex and confusing for many people and it would be nice to have a separate article to avoid that. Khorshid 03:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Comment. Basically, everything that's not POV-pushing in that article can be condensed into three or four sentences. And those three or four sentences already exist in Persian language#Nomenclature. By the way, the article should surely also describe who does use "Farsi" (e.g. Ethnologue and other linguists); the lack of such references clearly mark the POV agenda here. And I sense a contradiction: The article implies the problem only became one after 1979, whereas Spectheintro above notes that it had occasioned official declarations earlier, so the problem must have been around for much longer. (Implying that an opposing viewpoint is very recent is of course a well-known cheap propaganda trick of POV-pushing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was going to say merge at first but I think khorshid has a point. The article is too long to be merged with Persians language it deserve its own page. Gol 08:39, 19 July 2006 (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.