I nominated this article for deletion, and after a long debate it was deleted, and again it was restored. Now, I surprised when I see that Beeblebrox just kept it. Honesty I don't have any personal interest here, despite being the subject of many personal attacks by the creator of the article like this. I think that my nomination was not refuted and after all, the creator (who is a SPA user) couldn't find any reliable source for the article. Note that when the discussion was relisted, 2 established users voted, and both were in favor of "Delete". Otherwise, how do you read this 2 comments?
Comment - a classic example of how ISBN numbers are used as bookselling tools on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN numbers are the standard identifier in both the publishing and library community, and are well accepted in Wikipedia--to the extent that they comprise the input to WP:Book Sources, a page which provides for non-promotional linking. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only 4 Gbooks hits, 2 of which are from Books, LLC, which seems to publish copies of Wikipedia articles. Edward321 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's clear that the article should be deleted.Farhikht (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close The previous DRV was closed with a decision to relist with a closing statement that Consensus here is that further discussion is required to reach a clear consensus There were two additional comments that did not specifically say they thought the article should be deleted and did not provide solid policy based reasons for doing so. WP:GHITS is generally not considered a valid deletion argument, and the user did not mention if they searched in Spanish or Persian, the languages this author writes in, or just English. The other comment about ISBN numbers seems to be a criticism of the fact that ISBN numbers for everything written by this person are included in the article. That is not a reason to delete either as they can easily be removed. So, I saw little to no value in those comments and felt I had little choice but to find that there was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be very harsh to censure Beeblebrox for that close. There really is no consensus here, and I do not see any pressing reason why it is so necessary to delete this material.—S MarshallT/C 19:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some clean up. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse as I would have found it very hard to delete that article. It's a less than satisfactory state of affairs. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is well referenced and I see no satisfactory reason for deletion. The original language of the author is Persian, a simple Google search (in Persian or in English) shows more reference, news and lots of citations of his works in different Persian literary journals.--Transcelan (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the beginning of previous afd the article had about 18-20 references and it has 18 more references now. Also, the SPA question did not prove anything. --Transcelan (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
