Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemat Sadat


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nemat Sadat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Allegedly CSD-A7, claimed to be an autobiography, however there is enough information here that the article could be salvaged in a rewrite as opposed to deleted. I leave it to the community to decide this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - He created his own article and he is not even notable per Wikipedia guidelines, and nearly all the sources that he cites are unverifiable, unreliable, and mirrors, I took the time to check them. He claimed to be the first gay Afghan but I proved him wrong. See Talk:Nemat Sadat. What's more funny is that he claims to live in New York but his IP is located in California. Haha.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:TNT and wait until someone unconnected to the subject writes an article to determine whether the subject is even notable. We can't get a neutrally written encyclopedia article out of such a high level of self-promotion, and this is at best a borderline case so there's little harm in not having an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2015 (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.