Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahram Abdullah Zadeh

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Abdullah Zadeh[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced WP:BLP issues, created by possible sock of User:Saqib. Bringing here for discussion on whether to delete the page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm at a loss trying to understand how an article with references to The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Gulf News is so "very poorly sourced" as to merit deletion. Yes, there is some unsourced content, but that can simply be removed by normal editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite The present article grossly fails BLP, making the assumption of guilt, describing the alleged crimes in excessive detail, and relying of anonymous comments--even if reported in good newspapers. I note the actual articles in those sources are considerably fairer than our article. The best thing to do here is to delete entirely and start over--I might say keep and revise sharply, except it's a negative BLP written by a single purpose editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Could well be a G10 case - when I read the article I am of the view that it's sole purpose is to disparage the subject. Sourcing isn't enough for an article: it must be neutral and most importantly it cannot be allowed to attack its subject. So notwithstanding the sourcing, deletion is appropriate here. I agree with DGG that keeping it for a re-write is not appropriate. If someone wants to start afresh with a new BLP-compliant article, go for it.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2010 (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.