Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alireza Shojaian

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Shojaian[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wikipedia:Notability ahuR ☘ 21:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: LGBT persons in Iran face state-sponsored persecution. Uncloseted persons face public exection. Alireza is one of the pioneers of queer art in the middle east. The claim that the subject is not notable is countered by sources in at leat 4 languages issued in Italy, Lebanon, France, Jordan and the US. When following the nominator's page, it was clear that they are Iranian and that theis AFD is politically motivated. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it was clear that they are Iranian and that theis AFD is politically motivated What motivation?--ahuR ☘ 09:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are unaware of the state of Iranian society

Not just LGBT people Rather, all people from all walks of life are under political pressure This poll was requested without any political motive This person has no reputation For your information, one of the administrators of Persian Wiki is proudly LGBT And this is a kind of slander --ahuR ☘ 09:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination rationale is "Wikipedia:Notability"? Let me remind the nominator that "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." per WP:DISCUSSAFD Merely asserting that something doesn't meet the GNG, without showing any work towards WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD is disruptive. Vexations (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on the basis the article currently hingis on a couple of interviews and an apparently self-penned article in The Advocate, but also has a couple of independent articles of some description or another. Probably squeaks over the WP:GNG high-bar at the moment. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be several decent references for the subject. Seems to meet notability. Also, the nominator for deletion gives absolutely no reasoning for the nomination. ExRat (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, meets GNG/Basic and nom is arguably bad faith. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Plenty of sources, is notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. There are BBC and several other substantial news stories. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough to establish notability per GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2020 (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.