Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bijan Zamani: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Blake44 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 37: Line 37:
*'''Report''' Note to administrators: I have serious concerns that this is a possible [[WP:VANDAL]] situation. Looks like users [[User:Farhikht|Farhikht]] and [[User:GPL93|GPL93]] have issues with the creator [[User:Alexkia1399|Alexkia1399]] as they both voted on his/hers other creation and instantly down voted this article too without any reason and the other user Farhikht says no notable news website which is a total lie as I explained and showed on the previous comment. I also might not like the creator ([[User:Alexkia1399|Alexkia1399]])'s activity but It is not right to take it to this article as these are not connected to each other at all !, Best - [[User:Blake44|Blake44]] ([[User talk:Blake44|talk]]) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Report''' Note to administrators: I have serious concerns that this is a possible [[WP:VANDAL]] situation. Looks like users [[User:Farhikht|Farhikht]] and [[User:GPL93|GPL93]] have issues with the creator [[User:Alexkia1399|Alexkia1399]] as they both voted on his/hers other creation and instantly down voted this article too without any reason and the other user Farhikht says no notable news website which is a total lie as I explained and showed on the previous comment. I also might not like the creator ([[User:Alexkia1399|Alexkia1399]])'s activity but It is not right to take it to this article as these are not connected to each other at all !, Best - [[User:Blake44|Blake44]] ([[User talk:Blake44|talk]]) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::Excuse me, but how exactly is expressing concerns about sock puppetry after notice votes from a proxy (immediately blocked by [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]]) and newly created accounts that have only contributed to articles and the AfDs involving the same editor Vandalism? [[User:Farhikht|Farhikht]] made very salient points but now his vote must be voided because you don’t like it?? Originally I believed that you and [[User:Alexkia1399|Alexkia1399]] we’re not connected after your initial response, but this statement leads me to think that May not be the truth. [[User:GPL93|GPL93]] ([[User_talk:GPL93|talk]]) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::Excuse me, but how exactly is expressing concerns about sock puppetry after notice votes from a proxy (immediately blocked by [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]]) and newly created accounts that have only contributed to articles and the AfDs involving the same editor Vandalism? [[User:Farhikht|Farhikht]] made very salient points but now his vote must be voided because you don’t like it?? Originally I believed that you and [[User:Alexkia1399|Alexkia1399]] we’re not connected after your initial response, but this statement leads me to think that May not be the truth. [[User:GPL93|GPL93]] ([[User_talk:GPL93|talk]]) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:::: You wrote "per John Pack Lambert. Most likely a WP:PROMO article. Best" here is your first comment and the second one about sock puppetry was related to the creator's other article that you commented on 18:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC) and right after on 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) you commented on this article, I'm not arguing on whether the creator made any mistakes or not and I don't care but this is a different article and I worked on it and added notable and high profile sources in reply to your first comment. Voting and judgement of the entire article as an editor based on another users activity on another article is not very professional and I call it Vandalism as you are deliberately intending to obstruct the article based on creator's activity not the article itself. You are saying you believe that me and the creator are not connected but before I opened this dispute it looked like you believed it and your comments made it look like that. [[User:Farhikht|Farhikht]] did not make a very salient point at all not because I don't like it because based on TRUE EVIDENCE like showing exact sources with their notability in my comment showing what he is saying is a total lie and should be voided. I showed and linked the sources and I asked are these high profile and notable sources or not ? I'm asking you too, read my last comment and look at the sources, are these "non notable news websites"? I will write here too are these "non notable news websites" [[Mehr News Agency]], [[Tehran Times]], [[Iran_(newspaper)]], [[Iranian Labour News Agency]], [[Crunchbase]], [[Jam-e Jam (newspaper)]]? , Best - [[User:Blake44|Blake44]] ([[User talk:Blake44|talk]]) 14:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:06, 16 July 2019

Bijan Zamani (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)

No RS, nothing significant can be found to create a page, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories have been edited and corrected. Most of the sources are reliable sources such as MehrNews, TehranTimes, Jamejam, EverybodyWiki, Tabnak, ILNA and AsrIran and all of these sources have their own wikipedia page and are well known popular news agency websites. Blake44 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interviews do not add to notability. Also, most physicians need to be notable as academics, which he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no doubt that he is a notable entrepreneur. There are many articles with reliable sources that talk about him other than the interviews, about the physician part I agree with John Pack Lambert so I think he should be mentioned as Iranian entrepreneur only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.73.122 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC) .[reply]
N.B. This user is using a confirmed and now blocked open proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert. Most likely a WP:PROMO article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment The article was poorly referenced and poorly formatted therefor I edited the article with new references and details. The writer of this article probably used the interviews to write the Wikipedia page and didn't know the Wikipedia should NOT be based on interviews. According to my research Bijan Zamani has been in notable and in the news for his work for the last 12 years, I found news archives from him that goes back to 2007. Please note that due to U.S. sanctions and relations many American websites do not cover the work of Iranian entrepreneurs but that doesn’t make this article less important. Many of the sources in this article are older and more reliable for Iranians than sources like “The New York Times”, “Huffington Post”, “Business Insider” or “Entrepreneur Magazine” or other sources that Wikipedia article creators’ usually reference to for entrepreneurs. I found many sources in Persian language but I tried to gather English coverage as much as possible for this article. By removing this article you are removing true and notable information. I have set aside the interviews at the end and all the links in the references that are connected to the main article purpose are all according to Wikipedia’s guideline and it’s based on notability and importance of the person’s work. Also to comment on users point of view dear John Pack Lambert the article is not about him being a physician at all and I think it was the article creators mistake at first, the category of the article was set for Iranian_People then you changed it to Iranian_Phycisians and his career or awards was never about his profession as physician. I see that the original writer removed the physician part which is the right move and I’m not arguing in that part. Dear Meeanaya according to Wikipedia page that you reference to WP:GNG and RS which I believe you mean Reliable Sources please note that all the references and details are more than “Reliable”. All the sources are secondary sources and the Interview links has been moved and now are not connected to the main article if needed the interview links can be removed or moved to External Links. In my point of view this article has more notability and reliable sources than many other entrepreneurs that have an article in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s List of Entrepreneurs (21th century). Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake44 (talkcontribs) 14:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can Comment as many times as you want but you only have one vote in an AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are so unique and famous personality I have no problems with my biography page.Alexkia1399 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have serious concerns that this is a possible WP:SOCK situation, as I did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Bahram (another article created by Alexkia1399). Outside the creator's keep vote, the other two are by a now-blocked web proxy and an account that has made only one edit outside Bijan Zamani and this deletion discussion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to GPL93, I don't think it is wise to start editing or voting for Wikipedia pages without fully understanding the rules, guidelines, possible outcomes and the environment. That's why I'm reading, studying and monitoring not just this article but 2 other to see according to guideline how the editors and administrators work. I'm not connected to the creator or other editors. I don't think me and the creator have the same English skills and as I see his/her comments and writing, I don't think he/she should be even credited for creating this article as I did all the research and editing. I would like to suggest GPL93 to stay on the subject and comment about the reason(s) you feel this article's information and source doesn't meet the notability guidelines in Wikipedia and please do not violate Wikipedia's rules such as "address the arguments, not the person making them". I'm sorry Alexkia1399 and GPL93 if I'm being straight forward, I just want to be clear, professional and respectful to Wikipedia's rules. Best, Blake44 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see potential in several Wikipedia articles like this one and I will work on them if they get accepted and make them more complete and useful. Best, Blake44 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent article improvements. He is in multiple mainstream sources and won national awards which clearly meets WP:GNG. According to its [1][2][3] sources half the population of his country is using his services. Easily passes notability guidelines. The "Delete" opinions were based on interviews but now the references have changed and interviews not used I don't see any reason to delete this article and I don't see any new comments about this matter from negative voters after recent improvements either. - Jacobz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just googled the name of his "startup" in Persian: "Mihanpezashk" which is a copy of Zocdoc. Just found some minor results on non notable news websites:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And here is his name (Bijan Zamani) in Persian:

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

So I doun't think that the subject is notable enough, fails WP:GNG.Farhikht (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Report Note to administrators: I have serious concerns that this is a possible WP:VANDAL situation. Looks like users Farhikht and GPL93 have issues with the creator Alexkia1399 as they both voted on his/hers other creation and instantly down voted this article too without any reason and the other user Farhikht says no notable news website which is a total lie as I explained and showed on the previous comment. I also might not like the creator (Alexkia1399)'s activity but It is not right to take it to this article as these are not connected to each other at all !, Best - Blake44 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but how exactly is expressing concerns about sock puppetry after notice votes from a proxy (immediately blocked by Malcolmxl5) and newly created accounts that have only contributed to articles and the AfDs involving the same editor Vandalism? Farhikht made very salient points but now his vote must be voided because you don’t like it?? Originally I believed that you and Alexkia1399 we’re not connected after your initial response, but this statement leads me to think that May not be the truth. GPL93 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "per John Pack Lambert. Most likely a WP:PROMO article. Best" here is your first comment and the second one about sock puppetry was related to the creator's other article that you commented on 18:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC) and right after on 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) you commented on this article, I'm not arguing on whether the creator made any mistakes or not and I don't care but this is a different article and I worked on it and added notable and high profile sources in reply to your first comment. Voting and judgement of the entire article as an editor based on another users activity on another article is not very professional and I call it Vandalism as you are deliberately intending to obstruct the article based on creator's activity not the article itself. You are saying you believe that me and the creator are not connected but before I opened this dispute it looked like you believed it and your comments made it look like that. Farhikht did not make a very salient point at all not because I don't like it because based on TRUE EVIDENCE like showing exact sources with their notability in my comment showing what he is saying is a total lie and should be voided. I showed and linked the sources and I asked are these high profile and notable sources or not ? I'm asking you too, read my last comment and look at the sources, are these "non notable news websites"? I will write here too are these "non notable news websites" Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper)? , Best - Blake44 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]