Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazem HajirAzad

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. Tone 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem HajirAzad[edit]

Non-notable autobiography (article is written by User:Kazem HajirAzad). Very few hits on Google: "Kazem HajirAzad" returns only 18 counting Wikipedia, "Kazem Hajir Azad" returns 8 and "Kazem Hazhir Azad" returns 26. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Iranian film and stage actor (see references in article's References section). Google hits are not a good method for demonstrating non-notability for a subject whose work is in non-English, and in non-English-speaking locales, particularly when there seem to be problems spelling/transliterating the subject's name into English. The subject of the article seems to have written virtually all of it, either logged in as User:Kazem_HajirAzad or under associated IPs; however, the material added is not self-serving and there's no reason to doubt its authenticity, so it will satisfy WP:V's regs on self-published sources if someone else adds material to the article. Rather than deletion, this article needs a re-write and page move to the correct spelling of the subject's name. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Baileypalblue. Not sure what is notable and what isn't in terms of Iranian cinema, but it's not fair to judge with the article only partially done. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references seem to check out. He is notable in his country. Dream Focus (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your condescending "yes, even non-Americans count as notable" in the history--I don't doubt that foreigners can be notable, obviously, but if he was truly notable he and his relatives wouldn't have to be editing and creating his own article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the references. And COI is most definitely not a reason for deletion--in practice relatives do write quite a number of articles, some of them perfectly viable. It's a reason for checking, not deletion.DGG (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2009 (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.