Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atieh Hassani


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Atieh Hassani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. None of the provided references can be considered a reliable source, being either self-published blogs and Youtube channels, Wikipedia pages, or pages having nothing at all to do with this subject. No other reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources insufficient. Total absence on Google Scholar, which is unusual for even a minor academic. Given that she works in the UK, it is unlikely that this is caused by problems with the orthography of her name. Also note that her bio has been speedily deleted from the Farsi WP for non-notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks more like it should be a case for WP:GNG than for WP:PROF (it is more about activism than scholarly impact) but there are no reliable sources that would show notability that way. The one source listed in the article that looks like it could be reliable, an article in the Guardian, doesn't mention the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A NN scholar engaged in pseudo-history and involved in running organisations that are presumably NN (as they are redlinks). She appears to be promoting the false proposition that Offa of Mercia, a king (not an emperor) had diplomatic relations with the Arab world because his coins had an Arabic inscription on them, one that he would have considered a blasphemy agaisnt Jesus Christ if he had known what it meant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 18 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.