Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farzad Esmaili: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
modify comment |
K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''Keep''' per current consensus he crosses the threshold for inclusion under our notability requirements. Limited English language sources should not preclude Esmaili. [[User:EricSerge|EricSerge]] ([[User talk:EricSerge|talk]]) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' per current consensus he crosses the threshold for inclusion under our notability requirements. Limited English language sources should not preclude Esmaili. [[User:EricSerge|EricSerge]] ([[User talk:EricSerge|talk]]) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''', not notable as stand alone stub. And his rank alone is not a sufficient reason to keep. He is one general/commander out of hundreds or more. Not shown to have done anything notable; trivial entry. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 18:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''', not notable as stand alone stub. And his rank alone is not a sufficient reason to keep. He is one general/commander out of hundreds or more. Not shown to have done anything notable; trivial entry. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 18:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' or '''redirect''' to [[Air Defense Base]] per [[WP:WHYN]]; despite a technical pass of [[WP:SOLDIER]] (which is an essay, BTW, not an SNG), this subject does not qualify for a stand-alone article just yet. No sources have been presented at this AfD that cover the subject directly and in detail. [[WP:TOOSOON]] applies -- he may be more notable in the future, if he does something notable and gets the requisite coverage. Not just yet. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:45, 21 November 2016
- Farzad Esmaili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:SOLDIER Reza Amper (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Commander of Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Force meets WP:SOLDIER criteria 2 and 3. Pahlevun (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete He is commander of normal military unit (a branch split from Iran Air Force), he is not member of (General Staff of Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran) nor one of supreme commanders, his rank (Brigadier general) only --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems you have no idea what a military branch is. IRIAADF is one of the four branches of Iranian Army, just like Navy or Air Force. Pahlevun (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Brigadier general is considered a rank of the level to grant notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER as brigadier general and is also current commander of Air Defense Base, a major military unit. Kges1901 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per current consensus he crosses the threshold for inclusion under our notability requirements. Limited English language sources should not preclude Esmaili. EricSerge (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable as stand alone stub. And his rank alone is not a sufficient reason to keep. He is one general/commander out of hundreds or more. Not shown to have done anything notable; trivial entry. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Air Defense Base per WP:WHYN; despite a technical pass of WP:SOLDIER (which is an essay, BTW, not an SNG), this subject does not qualify for a stand-alone article just yet. No sources have been presented at this AfD that cover the subject directly and in detail. WP:TOOSOON applies -- he may be more notable in the future, if he does something notable and gets the requisite coverage. Not just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)