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. As per argument raised below, WP:PROF is not met -- Samir 05:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Asgharzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I think this page does not meet the criteria of notability (WP:ACADEMIC) and also the page is not a place for propaganda and advertising : WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:SOAPBOX. Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly written, not notable, looks like an advertisement. Rory ^{Come for talkies} 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : I forget to mention that the Reliable Sources of this article are : ratemyprofessors.com , 8 times from a blog , five other blogs and personal websites and 16 times Google searching the words out of his books ! The article does not have a single source !!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy delete. Doesn't even say why the person should be considered notable. FurrySings (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Alireza Asgharzadeh is merely an assistant researcher at York University [1]. He is by no means a notable academic. The article clearly fails WP:Academic and has been written by someone who is probably connected to Asgharzadeh, and so it reads like an advertisement for Asgharzadeh.Kurdo777 (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment :Kurdo777 must prove his claim about existing relation between creator of this article and Alireza Asgharzade with reliable source otherwise it will be considered as a personal attack WP:NPA:Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense and Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence: Serious accusations require serious evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.248.64 (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please calm down. Kurdo777's remark was not a personal attack and you should not take it that way. All Kurdo777 said was "probably". there's no "outing", no accusation of untoward behavior. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not agree with you about the sources, and it is yourself opinion.))) Maziar Ashrafian Bonab, Eli Lancman, Ruth Linn, Myriam Yardeni and other article about person have same condition. There are enough sources for article.))) Please attantion to Talk:Alireza Asgharzadeh. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :If you think an article with same situation deserves AfD , does it means you have to build a same article with that problem ? Or the correct thing is to nominate them for AfD? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wikipedia have same rules for all article. WP:FIVE WP:NPOV.))) I add new sources to article, and i hope that problem will solve. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP has identical standards for every article. Nevertheless, there are almost 4 million articles and many of those don't adhere to guidelines and policies, so the argument that other similar articles exist, is an argument better avoided at AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With adding new references and deleting blogs, this article does not fullfil the required criteria for deletion nomination anymore.Because no good faith was implied in an effort to improve the article by nominator ,I am also concerned about any political agenda that may have inspired the nomination of this article for deletion. RfD is not to be used as part of a political squabble - otherwise, every biographical article that has any political significance would continuously be up for deletion. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even with the added sources, obviously does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Accusations of political bias are obviously out of line here, please assume good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume2303 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please attention to WP:ACADEMIC.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that WP:PROF is the same as WP:ACADEMIC, both redirect to WP:Notability (academics). If you think this person meets that guideline, please tell us which criteria and why and provide references to back up that claim. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on commenting According to WP:Notability (academics): For people who have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative—as for a person notable for popular writing in her subject.Alireza Asgharzadeh is more famous for his writings about Iranian Azerbaijanis's issues than his academic capacity.Because the lack of reliable sources in these issues, Asgharzade's works in these subjects are very important.His views has cited in other authors' works.e.g:Nader Entessar in Kurdish politics in the Middle East has quoted his views about racism in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.248.64 (talk) 15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that "notability" in the Wikipedia sense has nothing to do with "good", "bad", "important", "worthwhile", etc. What we need is reliable sources showing that this person has generated enough interest to be notable, according either one of our guidelines (be it WP:PROF or WP:GNG). One citation in one book is absolutely not enough. If his work is very important, it should not be too difficult to find proof of that, because other academics will have said so and cited it. Show us these sources and we can rapidly close this discussion as a "keep". In the absence of solid evidence for such recognition, however, we will in the end have to conclude that the inclusion guidelines are not met. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He has a body of academic work published in books and a number of credible academic publications. werldwayd (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. And note that "he has written stuff" is not one of the WP:PROF criteria. We need evidence that what he has written has made a significant impact. One paper with 67 citations in Google scholar and the rest at best in the low double digits is not enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. In addition, he is not mentioned in newspapers or magazines. Tradedia (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:33, 29 February 2012 (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.