Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payam Akhavan

Mr. Akhavan should not be listed on wikipedia. Not every lawyer for the ICC is listed on here. Not every McGill professor is listed here. He is not a well known author nor has he been published as heavily as other academics.

Clear example: Nicholas Kasirer, former dean of McGill's faculty of law, judge at the Quebec Court of Appeal, and famous civil-law scholar, does not have a wikipedia page.

According to http://www.mcgill.ca/law/about/profs/akhavan-payam Payam Akhavan is not even a professor, he is an "associate professor" I would therefore question who put up this page to begin with. I agree with the previous commment, and now knowing he is not even a tenured professor, he clearly doesn't meet the minimum threshold to be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafigurative (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How odd... After the last edit to this page, a user subsequently listed Payam Akhavan's degrees for no apparent reason in an attempt to bolster his Wikipedia credentials. Having a couple degrees does not mean you should be on wikipedia. Just because one is a visiting professor in Italy that doesn't necessarily warrant a page on wikipedia. Many lecturers visit other universities in other countries. Has Payam Akhavan fundamentally challenged or contributed to the study of law? What ideas has he come up with? Who has cited his books as persuasive or useful? (Has he written any books?) Why is Mr. Akhavan noteworthy? He is not even a tenured professor yet and, even if he were, only one McGill professor with tenure is listed on wikipedia (Margaret Somerville). What about the other 15? Margaret Somerville is considered a leader in her field and has been a notorious figure for quite some time. There are countless articles about her and she is constantly found in newspapers.

There are many NGOs operating for Iranian human rights. Should we list all those board of directors and founders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snobismeacadémique (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in secondary sources is more relevant that tenure status, and a Google search suggests to me that Akhavan meets the WP:GNG. There's a profile in the New York Times[1], a discussion of his role in potential Iranian ICC prosecutions[2], and he's regularly interviewed as an expert on Iran (as here or here). Seems like enough to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, there appears to be some sock puppetry going on in the above. Two users to Wikipedia whose first edit is to try to delete this article, both of whom choose French screen names and post within a few hours of each other? Seems unlikely. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar, if you look at the wikipedia history edits on Mr. Akhavan you will see it was me "nonpartisanfactsonly" that tried to remove the page, not the french contributors. Please note: Mr. Akhavan teaches in Québec, a province where the overwhelming majority speak French. Although Mr. Akhavan cannot speak French, he has had many francophone students. Approximately 60% of all undergraduate law students at McGill are from the province of Québec. Thus, having a french name on wikipedia is not indicative of sock puppetry as you suggest. It's merely an obtuse observation on your part.

Now, because someone is profiled in the NY Times does not mean they are wikipedia worthy. Let us not forget wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. You have not indicated what contributions Mr. Akhavan has made to anything (whether it be law, academia, etc.) The New York times has also profiled so-called "whiz kids" and those who have made remarkable scientific discoveries, yet they are not listed here on wikipedia. The New York times has also profiled people suffering with obesity and dog trainers. Should they be listed here as a result?

If you suggest that because the ICC "might" use him for possible Iranian prosecution purposes, that in itself goes against wikipedia's policies. One is not noteworthy simply because they might potentially be used in the future for possibly providing "expertise" (which no one has elucidated) at the ICC.

The above example about Margaret Somerville is appropriate. She has broadened her field and has become noteworthy to the public. What has this associate professor done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonpartisanfactsonly (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you found my comments obtuse, but this nomination was created by User:Snobismeacadémique, not you. It's interesting to see, though, that a third account shares their rambling tone, precise line of reasoning, single-purpose focus on this professor, and love of rhetorical questions.

Anyway, your obesity analogy is not on point. You're right to say that any source alone would not be enough, but you're missing the very basic point that there's more than one source here. If several media organizations wrote about someone for their obesity, and that person was also a professor of obesity and was interviewed as an expert by several other media organizations, and further served as an obesity expert on some of the world's most famous obesity organizations, yes, I would say they should be listed here. Anyway, you might spend some time reviewing our notability criteria at WP:N, which will give you better grounds for your argument in Wikipedia terms. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I echo Khazar2's statements above. This entry should be left untouched. Dr. Akhavan is a renowned expert of international law and a high level practitioner – which in this day and age has much stronger currency than publishing obscure, navel-gazing factoids in sources that no one reads, for the sole purpose of climbing an ever more irrelevant career ladder. He is an authority around advocating for civil society and human rights defenders globally and, particularly, in Iran. As Khazar2 mentioned, a simple google search would yield Dr. Akhavan's credentials and underscore his contributions and important role in maintaining palpable pressure on authoritative regimes, like the Islamic republic of Iran, to remain accountable to their citizens and uphold their human rights responsibilities. If being a tenured professor were grounds enough for inclusion onto this platform, wikipedia would be the most irrelevant website on the internet and would cease to exist. Rather, this is a platform that celebrates impact and Dr. Akhavan's contributions - both scholarly and practically - merit his inclusion. These taken into account, I am struck by the vindictive line of reasoning, failure to appreciate this fact or factor in the plethora of objective news sources that would support his stature. Even more concerning, this request to delete this page appears to me to be a coordinated disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting a prominent practitioner and scholar at the expense of global civil society and those people whose rights he's helped defend. --Pherdowsi (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC) – February 16, 2013[reply]