Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frood Fouladvand

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. No valid reason for deletion provided, likely bad hand/sock. Any editor in good standing is welcome to bring about a new AfD if they believe it's merited. Star Mississippi 01:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frood Fouladvand[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)

This article is in hopeless condition, barely any citations, wrong and/or unsubstantiated information in violation of BLP. It is nearly impossible to provide better citation or verification as this person has disappeared over a decade ago. It's had a long time to improve, time to delete it. Mattjames1 (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Frood Fouladvand[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Iran, and Turkey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has 22 citations, which covers most of the article. If there is wrong and/or unsubstantiated information in violation of BLP, I think we should start removing that first. Also, your very first action here in Wikipedia was to nominate this article for deletion, not something a new user would even know how to do, curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Half of those aren't real reasons for deletion, see WP:NOTCLEANUP. "Hopeless condition", "it's had a long time to improve" are one of the most common faulty arguments. I would encourage you to read WP:ATD and provide more details on the talk page about the specific issues you have with the article. I can't immediately see what violations of WP:BLP you are talking about. ObsidianPotato (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources do not support the notability of subject as they are ALL passing mentions or descriptions of the situation rather than the subject itself. The fifth source, [[1]], vaguely covers subject in a few sentences but that is the most in-depth coverage of the 22 that were provided. Notable publications such as Washington Post don’t provide a pass simply with a line. A Google search did not turn up unused supporting evidence for notability either. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this article has lots of sources and has garnered much attention and that is good reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2022 (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.