Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Yazdani (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The responses suggest that the subject still doesn't satisfy GNG despite there being a lot of interviews and some other coverage. Wouldn't be against recreation if notability could be established. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Farid Yazdani
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are at least three problems with this biography of a living person. First, a Google search finds that Farid Yazdani is an Iranian-Canadian actor who uses social media and has an extensive on-line presence. It says over and over again that he is a Canadian actor or an Iranian-Canadian actor. That is more or less what it says. We knew that. Second, there was already a deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/Farid Yazdani, and it concluded that he did not satisfy acting notability or general notability. He still doesn't. None of the roles listed in this draft since 2017 are major roles. Third, this article appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to know how Farid being an Iranian-canadian actor or a Canadian actor is grounds for termination. Upon googling his imdb and instagram page - there is nothing mentioned about him being Iranian. There is mention of him on numerous American and Canadian Television series. To address the acting notability or general notability disclaim, Farid was highlighted in red on many other wikipedia pages such as the Suits Season 5 under recurring cast (2.2), The Odd Squad wiki page, under villains (2.2.3) as well as the S.I.N. Theory page under cast. To me, it seems important enough for him to be listed on many other verified wikipedia pages. Third - CBC has just released a press package stating that he has been recently cast as a series supporting on a new series titled: Feudal. I can predict that show will made into a wiki page as well. Farid is also verified on Facebook . Don't know how much more is needed before "credibility" is high enough 170.10.244.114 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is not about how many Wikipedia pages link (or redlink) to someone, especially since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and articles wildly vary in quality and how much necessary or unnecessary information they include, so that's not really a valid argument here. It's about how many third party reliable sources cover a person or subject as more than a side mention. The Iranian-Canadian bit I think is either saying the article is missing information or that a quick Google search didn't bring up sources that confirmed notability, not that his nationality is an issue. His Facebook page and whether or not it's verified isn't really relevant to the points raised in this discussion. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Further, the article (created 16:42, 27 August 2020 UTC (link to first revision)) was not redlinked on Odd Squad until approximately an hour before its creation (15:56 to 15:58, 27 August 2020 UTC (diff)) and was not redlinked at all on Suits recently (link was added 16:47, 27 August 2020 UTC (diff), five minutes after this article's creation). Both of these new linkings were added by the article's creator. I'll bite that S.I.N. Theory was redlinked--it was added back in 2013 by what appears to be a different account of Yazdani's. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Some part of me thinks it's possible he meets notability but I'm leaning the other way strongly enough to vote toward deletion. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to again point out there are many articles and interviews of Farid Yazdani online - which I think validates his credibility. I think it's a weak delete request indeed and it should stay. As soon as Feudal is released, a wikipedia page will once again be made and I have a feeling it will stay. I'm just creating the page on his behalf to get ahead of the media push. I don't think the points are valid enough as he is a supporting lead on a new CBC TV series - which in alone should be enough credibility as it addresses the claim that he hasn't played in a "major role".
 * Speaking about himself in Q&A interviews doesn't demonstrate notability — we require sources in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And even if you're going for "notable because he's had acting roles", that test isn't passed just because roles are listed — it's passed only when one or more of his roles have made him the subject of enough reliable source third party journalistic coverage about him in real media to pass WP:GNG, and no number of roles exempts a person from having to have coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Furthermore to the point of Facebook, it is relevant as grounds for acting notability states in section 2 that the entertainer "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Upon searching Facebook, I believe his page has a modest 16,000+ followers.  170.10.244.114 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The number of followers a person does or doesn't have on a social networking platform has absolutely nothing to do with our notability criteria for people in any occupation, and actors are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that acting roles were had — the notability test for an actor requires things like notable acting awards, and/or media coverage that is substantively about him and his performances, which is not the same thing as merely having his name passingly mentioned in casting announcements, or appearing on the cover of a magazine that doesn't have a feature piece about him inside the issue, or speaking about himself in the first person in a Q&A interview on a local newscast. Obviously no prejudice against recreation at a later date if Feudal either gets him more substantial coverage or scores him a Canadian Screen Award nomination — but nothing that's already stated in the article today is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this — we're looking for journalism, not photographs or press releases or social networking posts. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Do video interviews count toward press? I feel like they should be worth just as much if not more than print. For print, the page has already sourced an article that is strictly about him and his work . I can also source at least 3 interviews on CP24 which is one of Toronto's largest, if not largest news outlet.
 * No, interviews don't count in any format, because they represent the subject talking about himself in the first person — but to count toward getting him over GNG, a source has to represent other people talking or writing about his importance and impact in the third person. You're allowed to sparingly use interviews for additional verification of facts after he's already been shown to clear GNG on proper journalism — for instance, if it happens to be in an interview that a person confirms their exact birthdate or their ethnic background, or comes out as LGBTQ or whatever, then you can use the interview to source that fact — but the interviews are not GNG-making coverage in and of themselves, if the article doesn't contain a sufficient number of third party sources written in the third person. Notability is not a thing people get to give themselves by talking about themselves self-promotionally — it's a thing other people have to anoint them with by externally and objectively assessing and analyzing the significance of their work, such as by writing content about it in newspapers and magazines and books. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * CommentFarid also won a Canadian Comedy award for Day Players, to add to the request for notable awards. He is seen talking about it in 2 of the interviews. I've answered every single request that has been made regarding what needs to be seen. The proof is sourced and reliable. Ive seen weaker wiki pages about other actors with less sourcing. Seems like a prejudice at this point and a weak delete request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.10.244.114 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Every award that exists is not always an automatic notability clincher — awards support notability only to the extent that said award gets media coverage. If you want to make a person notable for winning an award, you cannot source that award win to the award's own self-published website about itself; it has to be sourced to journalistic reportage about the award ceremony in order to establish that the award is a notable one in the first place. Notability is not simply a matter of counting the number of footnotes an article has in it — there are a lot of websites out there that are not reliable or notability-supporting sources, so notability is about evaluating the quality of the sources rather than just their number. It is entirely possible for a person with more footnotes to be less notable than a person with fewer footnotes, because the quality of the sources is much more important than how many footnotes there are or aren't. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (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.