Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Hakimzadeh


 * 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. keep arguments based on notabiluty do not counter arguments based on BLP1E or ONEEVENT Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to expand on my rationale for closing this so here goes.

The basis of the nomination was that the subject was a classic BLP1E. Another 8 editors agreed with this. 6 editors including one defector from the delete side argued that this subject easily met the GNG and the article should be retained. There were also two arguments to move the article to the event but this position did not gain any traction. Since the delete side did not have an overwhelming majority the sheer numbers do not give an consensus to delete so we have to look closely at the arguments.

The keep arguments were pretty much based around the notability arising from the press coverage. This is undoubted. The deletion arguments based on BLP1E & ONEEVENT implicity accept the the subject passed the GNG but as BLP1E states if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. This appears to have been the case. By simply relying on GNG the keep side failed to demonstrate sufficient significance to overcome the argument that this was a 1E. According to BLP The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. No overriding evidence of persistence of coverage was demonstrated in the discussion and the example of a significant individual who overcomes BLP1E from the policy is someone like John Hinkley whose noteriety this person clearly does not match.

So what was I left with? The argument that this was a BLP1E and ONEEVENT wasn't countered by demonstrating enduring significance. According to the policy the article therefore stood for deletion. Passing GNG on its own can be no bar to deletion under BLP1E as otherwise nothing would ever be deleted for that reason. For these reasons the consensus here was clearly for deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Farhad Hakimzadeh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This subject seems to be a bit of a classical fit for WP:1E. From a search on google news, there is clearly a good amount of coverage about this singular event. But the only coverage not surrounding this event that I could find is his mention here. It explains there that he is the "chief executive of the Iranian Heritage Foundation", but i'm not sure if that's really enough. Especially considering that it seems that there is no Iranian Heritage Foundation article on its own. A Google Books search brings up a lot of mentions, but they seem to all fall under the category of thanking him for his help in making the book or publications that he was involved in. Not really any notability to be had there. A Scholar search brings up much the same thing, a bunch of thank you's and not much else. I don't believe there is really enough notability to be had on this subject other than this one event that he is involved in. Silver seren C 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuke it from high orbit - it's classic BLP1E and seems to serve only to disparage its subject. His one crime dominates the entire article, in fact the opening line is a complete joke. Kill it with fire already :( - A l is o n  ❤ 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me just say that this response made me laugh. :P Silver  seren C 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

*Delete. Minor flurry of news stories at the time, but no sign of enduring notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete News sources? Yes. Evidence of fame? No. In terms of people, I tend to accept the latter. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a record of (fairly) minor crimes, however unusual. Wolfview (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I created this article this story was all over the news. WP:1E and BLP1E don't forbid us from having articles on those convicted of serious crimes; they merely discourage us from unduly highlighting insignificant people rather than the single event they are known for. The subject was convicted of the crimes, and news coverage was significant as discussed above; much of the coverage does focus on the individual who perpetrated these crimes. Perhaps a move to a different title would be a compromise? The event was pretty notable and in my opinion deserves an article, even if the consensus now is that the subject doesn't, something I am not fully convinced of myself. --John (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, when you're dealing with a significant event, you make an article on the event itself, not the people involved in the event. That's pretty much exactly what WP:1E says. I think you'd be better off just making the event from scratch, you don't need this article, it has practically nothing in it. Silver  seren C 08:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And frankly, starting an article with "[subject] is an Iranian-born British author, businessman, collector, and thief." is a bit of a non-starter. Good grief! - A l is o n  ❤ 10:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * John didn't in fact create the article that way, note. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. Has continued in 2010 to receive coverage since the event. A look at the Category:Convicted book-thieves shows that the convention is to create articles about the thief rather than the thieving. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an incorrect conclusion to draw, given that unlike this article several of those biographies are actually full biographies, with more than just accounts of book thefts in them. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice, William Jacques is maybe something this article can aspire to. Lack of content isn't grounds for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:GNG; the subject has received significant press coverage. Besides, were not talking about "minor crimes" here, and the article shows that the subject is famous for more than one event. Any bias toward the subject or lack of content can be tagged and improved. Wikipedia is a work in progress, right? Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- this person's notability seems to be established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The other problems with this article are likely to be fixable through regular editing. Reyk  YO!  05:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Pontificalibus,s accurate reasonings for keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: clear WP:BLP1E, and a recent (and far smaller) flurry of coverage centring around his eventual conviction for that self-same 1 event does not alter the fact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A historic event to be sure. How often does something like this happen?  Ample coverage.  A lasting effect of this person's actions, is the British Library increased their security dramatically, I adding that into the article with a reference to the BBC news.    D r e a m Focus  12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep since security was changed. This man stole a piece of civilization from two libraries. Worthy of note, and a warning to other places.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly WP:ONEVENT. Everyone upgrades security after a theft in your home, office etc, that's routine. 210.56.72.185 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is, however, that a home theft does not typically receive "significant coverage in [independent] reliable sources", so it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. The subject in question does. Guoguo12  --Talk--  02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The event in question does, not the person, which is exactly what WP:BLP1E states. Silver  seren C 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why is one of the references titled "The thief who stole pages from history" and provides what is certainly "significant coverage" of Hakimzadeh? Guoguo12  --Talk--  02:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only four sentences in that reference is about him. And it all relates, regardless, to the singular event. This article should be about this one event, which will never be more than just this event. Silver  seren C 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Only four sentences"? The article in question mentions Hakimzadeh by name 18 times! The article is centered on Hakimzadeh and (arguably) provides "significant coverage" of Hakimzadeh from the very first sentence ("To staff at the British Library, Farhad Hakimzadeh seemed...") to the very last line ("But the actual reasons why this wealthy and cultured man defaced..."). Guoguo12  --Talk--  22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BLP1E, if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? no. WP:PERP applies. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This passes #3 of WP:PERP, and WP:BLP1E does not suggest deletion, simply that the article should be renamed to 2008 British Library thefts or similar. Is that what you are arguing for? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * no, please stop putting words into my mouth. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But you are citing polcies to support your "Delete" argument that only justify a renaming of the article. Do you have a genuine reason for deletion rather than the fact you don't like the article name? Do you think the entire event is non-notable perhaps? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * my delete !vote stands. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but that doesn't justify deletion, only renaming. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

it justifies deletion, my !vote stands so please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. LibStar (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this was meant to be a debate. WP:BLUDGEON would apply if I repeated the same point in reply to many people, it doesn't apply whenever someone highlights flaws in your argument. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

if you are right then it would be a snow keep. but since you say you are right you must be right. you still qualify for BLUDGEON by "This is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view." LibStar (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Move Since he is notable for a crime only, we should rename and make it a crime article. Soewinhan (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Move and focus the article on the crime. Clearly there is a will to preserve the information about the crime itself, and whilst I'm not convinced the crime passes notability, the debate here has been about whether there should be an article about the person. As the person is solely notable in connection with this theft, it's a clear WP:BIO1E. If anyone questions whether the crime is notable, that's better discussed in a fresh AfD without the notability of the person muddying the issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Snotty Wong   confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - With luck we'll get a closing admin who will discount the keep votes as largely fraudulent. Let's quote from WP:BLP1E; "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."  This person is only in the news for committing this crime.  This person is otherwise a low-profile individual.  What else can be said about the crime, that it led to improved security at the British Library?  Gee, ya think?  This is pure one-event and WP:NOTNEWS material, and should serve as a general caution to creation-happy editors to not just scan today's headlines and pick out something they think is interesting.  I was about to point out the surprise at Owen Honors still thankfully being a redlink, then saw in post preview that it was not.  Off to weigh in on yet another pointless article... Tarc (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does your edit summary say delete, but your vote says Keep? Did you mistype one of them? Silver  seren C 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Tarc meant delete. Oh well. In any case ... "largely fraudulent"? Really? So all of us who !voted keep (six, not including Tarc) are frauds? Are cheaters trying to harm this encyclopedia? Talk about assuming good faith! I'd be careful before making a sweeping judgement like that if I were you, Tarc. Stay civil. Guoguo12  --Talk--  21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. Not sure how the nasty "K" word got into my entry, but it has been fixed accordingly. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (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.