Since the nom clearly has no intention of presenting any real sources, I urge this be speedy closed and the nom indef blocked as an obvious sock. -- RoySmith(talk)15:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the extremely high degree of sockpuppetry and other bad behaviour that infested the original discussion, I also don't believe a simple assertion that new sources have come available — on a Google search, for example, I am finding nothing that didn't already exist at the time of the original discussion. If Windernet really believes they have genuinely solid new sourcing that would support a true WP:GNG pass, they're more than welcome to create a draft version in draftspace or user sandbox space so that we can actually see what's on the menu here — but they can do that without needing DRV to restore the old article, and given what the past creators thought was acceptable sourcing (user-submitted "citizen news" platforms and his hometown local newspaper?) I'm not unsalting the page in advance of knowing whether the "significant new sources" are really any better. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've also now gone back to review the followup recreation that necessitated the salting of the redlink. The content and most of the sourcing remained identical to the original deleted version — and of the sources that were new at that time, four of the five were blogs (three on WordPress and one on a corporate platform), and the fifth was a self-published press release issued by Nadernejad himself to a press release distribution platform. Which meant that exactly none of those new "sources" were reliable ones that contributed anything toward properly demonstrating his notability. And that, Windernet, is exactly why you're not getting the benefit of the doubt on the quality of your new sources until we see them: this article has a long history of trying to rest on bad sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse/keep deleted No evidence advanced that there is a reason to overturn. Probably worth a speedy close given that A) there is no evidence and B) this is clearly a sock of some sort. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion review isn't for bringing new evidence to light, if the situation had really changed then creating a new article in spite of the AFD wouldn't be controversial. (No, please don't do that.) KaisaL (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, given the amount of hijinx around this topic in the past, I think a higher bar than usual is appropriate. I'd be willing to consider new evidence, but it would have to be impressive for me to suggest that we unsalt the article title. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse- it is no use just asserting that there are sources out there somewhere, you've got to show what they are. Considering the history of socking and other bad behaviour surrounding this article, this should not be re-created without really convincing evidence. ReykYO!19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
