Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zareh Akbar Bathenjani
=[[Zareh Akbar Bathenjani]]=
:{{la|Zareh Akbar Bathenjani}} –
:({{findsources|Zareh Akbar Bathenjani}})
Iranian Ministry article was PRODded in June 2008 for having no sources, PROD was subsequently removed. I too can find no sources confirming Zareh Akbar Bathenjani was the Minister of Agriculture from 1982 until 1984. However, there are sources which suggest that Mohammed Salamati held that position during 1982 and 1983. Google book preview for "The neglected garden: the politics and ecology of agriculture in Iran" by Keith Stanley McLachlan has the following quote: The drive to decentralization was strongly supported by Mohammed Salamati, who took over as Minister of Agriculture from Reza Esfahani in September 1980 and remained until a cabinet change in 1983. Other Google book snippet results from the time period, e.g. "The political economy of revolutionary Iran" dated 1983 and "Middle Eastern stability: analysis of political and economic risk for US" dated 1982, also mention Salamati as the minister.
Also, searches on "Salamati" in news archives, books, scholar, and the web with Iran ministry- or agriculture-related keywords all return several hits. Searches on "Bathenjani" with the same keywords return no hits except Wikipedia reprints. The article currently fails core content policy Verifiability, especially in light of conflicting evidence from printed sources. I recommend to Delete the article, and its associated redirect at Bathenjani, unless a reliable source can substantiate the content. Michael Devore (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I usually don't bother to to add a "per nom" statement, but in this case I will, because the nomination is exceptionally well researched and leads to a clear case for deletion. I would urge the closing admin, unless any valid arguments are made for keeping, not to make this a "no consensus" based on lack of numbers, as the nominator's argument is what should count, rather than how many "per noms" there are. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2009 (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.