Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Golrang


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Akbar Golrang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced biography of a writer of a lot of ebooks and self-published books through PublishAmerica. I couldn't find evidence he meets our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  17:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Prolific author who has not been noticed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete with caveat. No sources (a major no no for BLPs). No real evidence of notability from a Google search. However I note the author's background is one that would suggest sources might be available in languages other than English. If some are found I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment An article on one of his ebooks has just been created, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zarathustra : the Golden Star. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If true, he may be prolific enough to warrant the article being kept. If the books or films can be shown to exist, that will be source enough for them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Why? How does being prolific make someone notable? A prolific Yale professor, I was told, still didn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, so how can someone whose literary output seems basically self-published be notable without even meeting WP:GNG? Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that he's not prolific enough to qualify under that criteria. That's the sort of thing that would qualify if he had written an extremely, extremely large amount of books. The expectation for prolific as notability is that the writer would have written closer to 100+ books, but even then that's not really enough to qualify because there would still need to be some sort of coverage to mark this as notable. The thing about this qualification is that self-publishing is making it incredibly easy (or at least easier) for people to publish everything they've written, whereas in the past only people who could afford the cost or had a publishing contract could get that many made. In other words, the only way that someone would get notability for writing a lot of books is if they were to have written an extremely large amount in a certain time period and/or received coverage about that doing so. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although that said, I do see one of his works listed as a cite in this book through University Press of America. It's not enough to keep or even really show notability, but it does help assert that there might be sources in another language. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.