Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farshid Delshad (2nd nomination)

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. The hardest part of this was figuring out who all the sockpuppets are. All of these are WP:SPAs:

Note, that includes people on both sides of the argument, including the nom. Anyway, throw all that away and I see NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farshid Delshad[edit]

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

This entry was created for self-promotion. It is poorly written and contains little, if any, relevant primary and secondary sources. If you look at the Edit history of the user ("Europersia") who created this Wikipedia entry, and then look at the history of Europersia's own User page, you can see that the entire entry on "Farshid Delshad" existed on Europersia's personal User page at the time this article was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Europersia Exposing selfpromotion (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Farshid Delshad" entry was created for self-promotion. It is poorly written and contains little, if any, relevant primary and secondary sources. If you look at the Edit history of the user ("Europersia") who created this Wikipedia entry, and then look at the history of Europersia's own User page, you can see that the entire entry on "Farshid Delshad" existed on Europersia's personal User page at the time this article was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Europersia Exposing selfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail WP:NOTE. Lack of significant secondary source coverage independent of the subject himself. — Benedict Ferton (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who created the page but I made some editing. all I added has sources and besides that, his name is mentioned in different wiki pages and different categories. could you tell me what's the reason that you keep asking for deletion? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviva Jacobson (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the timestamps in the nomination, this was created on 27 October 2015 and listed on that day's AfD log page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as although Books and Scholar found some links, there's not much convincingly better. Pinging past users Yamaguchi先生 and Randykitty and also likely interested users DGG and LaMona. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to judge notability as a scholar in this field, as is always the case for people whose main work is as trasnlators. I consider the overall record sufficient to show expert status in the area. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been said before, Farshid Delshad fails the notability test on WP:NOTE. Others have also correctly pointed out problems with the article's sources primary. There are also no secondary sources independent of the subject himself, and the article itself appears to have a shady history involving self-promotion, as has been pointed out before. Jabberwalky112 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable. I think they are trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool rather than to educate others. As a member of the Iranian academic literary community, I cannot say I have ever heard of this person's works.JamshidPakzad (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think wikipedia really needs to looking deeper into articles primarily written by the subject himself. If they want to promote themselves, learn code and create your own webpage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and some questions; this article reads like a resume, telling readers what Delshad has accomplished, there appears to be no referenced analysis of his work, nor references showing the impact of his work in the area of linquistics. He has been a lecturer, not notable, has written a thesis, not notable, has obtained additional linguistic training, not notable, is a scholar, not in itself notable, and a translator, not notable, and has written a number of books, not notable. Where are the reviews of these books that tell the reader the impact they have made in Delshad's field? has he won any notable awards? As the article presently reads he does not appear to have made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"WP:ANYBIO. The references in the article only tell readers what he has done and written. I know notability doesn't apply to article content WP:NNC and WP:CONTN, but I hope that those editors who believe this article should be kept can provide some useable citations. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.