Talk:Persian Gulf Online Organization

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Multiple issues

There's a lack of independent WP:RS, plus unverified claims and contradictions. A second AfD is needed. Widefox; talk 06:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More justification at the AfD (no. 2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persian Gulf Online Organization Widefox; talk 20:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maintenance tags were removed a second time without either addressing the issues, or reasoning here... The AfD contains more details on why the tags are justified including the book (is it technically self published? as I has assumed so considering the contents are from WP etc and my motivation to research the book was waning). By removing claiming "POV" (see WP:ad hominem) does not advance the argument, and is not consensus. I notice you took this naming WP:ADVOCACY to Jimbo [1], neither him nor me have a horse in this race. If are you associated with this organisation, please read WP:COI, thanks. Widefox; talk 12:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you related this simple discussion to unrelated subjects like what Jimbo has said. Please just talk about this article only and nothing else. It's very easy and simple, you claimed that the article is not neutral and is self-published and original research, etc. OK, but explain us how did you find out?! And FYI I've read WP:COI a million times, and also I've read WP:NPA two million times and I know that if someone imputes what I'm not to me (I mean "associated with this organisation") is clearly a kind of NPA. ●Mehran ^Debate● 16:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is exactly the problem of this article regarding neutrality issue or factual accuracy ?!!! In fact 10:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources can you surely say that are self-published sources ?!!! In fact 10:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is original research ?!!! In fact 10:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are primary ones ?!!! In fact 10:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So as Mehran correctly mentioned in this edit summary, you are blindly adding a bulk of tags to this article without any good reasons. and although others are opposing you, you keep adding them to the article. In fact 11:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You exactly said what I wanted to say. Thanks ●Mehran ^Debate● 16:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all those tags seem pointless. Dream Focus 22:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags without addressing the issue

This edit [2] removed the dead tag without fixing the problem that that site is down:

http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.persiangulfonline.org "It's not just you! http://www.persiangulfonline.org looks down from here."

There's a new address in the article which makes this moot, but tags should not be removed without addressing the problem first. Thank you, Widefox; talk 16:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]