Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babak Radmanesh


 * 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. – Juliancolton  | Talk 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Babak Radmanesh

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm taking this to AfD as a formality. This article was created by an annoying spammer who filled the majority of the article with unsourced and potentially libellous claims of personal information. These have now been removed, but not before the original poster was blocked from editing. The remainder of the article is OK on the BLP front, but it's unclear whether the subject of the article is actually notable, and since the only person who clearly wants the article is the person who got blocked for making libellous claims, it's unclear whether anyone actually wants this article, nor is it clear whether the subject is actually notable. I put a prod on the article to see if anyone wanted to keep it, and it got deleted as part of an edit, but as there was no explanation it's unclear whether this was an intentional contestation. I'd quite like a decision one way or the other. I don't see the purpose in keeping an article that no-one wants, but other than that, I don't have any views one way or the other. (If it is kept, however, I would recommend that the original article is deleted from the history.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Googling suggests notability, such as here. Interestingly too, at one point [|this version] "Ealing Times" was added to the text suggesting that some of the unsourced stuff might be from the local paper, and the wording seemed newspaper-style, so it may actually be sourced (even copyvio!), but the editor who added it didn't bother to cite the source properly (like a date) and that version was deleted as the umpteenth attempt to add the same information. It's not on the paper's website, but the date mentioned is 1998 so probably older than the online archive. I have no axe to grind here, I just dropped by to stub-sort it at some point yesterday. PamD (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced. If any of the Google hits were to a newspaper or other WP:RS, and the newspaper was added as a source (for what it corroborated), I would change to a 'keep' - but all my own checking of the google results have just turned up unverifiable claims. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not seem to contain any verifiable notability from RS.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources for any biographical information should generally mean a BLP is deleted.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Northing turns up in a newspaper library search. Hiding T 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (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.