Talk:Fereshta Kazemi

Self Promotion
This article is blatant self promotion by user:ZakSheref (strangely looks like an anagram of Fereshta Kazemi). I think there is a clear conflict of interest in someone writing its own bio on WP. Few comments on my edits: Ready to discuss this, but really, it shouldn't take too long if user:ZakSheref would learn about WP:NPOV and the guidelines about Wikipedia
 * I replaced reference to an obscure pakistani website to IMDB for the number of awards of the film Heal. References should be notable (take a look at Identifying reliable sources).
 * Films you acted in are mostly short films, let's specify it. (by adding the length of the movie for instance)
 * The information about Fereshta Kazemi having her picture taken in a dress in the streets of Kabul has no encyclopaedic value.
 * the term "movie star" appears nowhere in the fox news article you gave, There is no reference to kissing on screen in the LA Times article that you gave. Sources should be quoted, and you shouldn't inferring what you think they say.
 * Overall, I think there is a Notability problem with this article.

Fabienkhan | talk page 02:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like a WP:SPA to me.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 02:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone comment on the issues raised above? I've been leaving messages to user:ZakSheref about that, and there doesn't seem to be any reaction on her part+a few reverts without explanations and respect for WP guidelines. Fabienkhan | talk page 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the main issue we are confronting is SPA. This article looks like a promo and the subject lacks notability. --Precision123 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , you may want to start a AfD then, I am very sure that article with end up with a 'speedy keep'. We have no doubt about the notability of this person, because they have got profile on multiple news, imdb, etc. The one and only problem is that we are ignored by a SPA who has done nothing in wikipedia, except editing this article.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was wrong then. I assumed that the subject was not notable. An IMDb profile isn't really proof of notability; anyone can be on it. Is there specific information added to the article that is problematic? Thanks for clarifying. --Precision123 (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, but very soon such profiles on IMDB are deleted if they have been objected. SPA has made some of the very strange edits on this page, they have been removed, for example, but every time they go and add something similar to the previous content. They don't want to talk anyone, and they don't want to discuss any of their edits. This is on going for more than 1 year. So other editor wants to know that what should be done about this article, just for making it better. Originally, I have to do nothing with this person or this page, only came here for linking Rape in Afghanistan, months ago, because I had created that page.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made some edits. The article wasn't too bad, a few words here and there that were a bit fluffy. I also think she meets the threshold for notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 13:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had checked. Article is not bad, nor the person is non-notable. What have to comment on the alleged WP:Conflict of interest of a WP:SPA.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The user is clearly a single purpose account but there is no rule against that if they abide by the rules for proper editing. As for COI is there any evidence of that other than all their edits are to one article?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 13:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First 9 lines of this section, and explanation that can be viewed from here  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ZakSheref says he/she is a fan. That's not a conflict of interest. There are scores of 'fans' adding content on the WP page of their 'idol' every day. We have to educate them about our standards but its not a conflict of interest issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds better, 'idol' is the right term.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 18:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)