Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mansour Jabalameli

: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. Even though there are a few keep votes, the logic forwarded does not adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Consensus - in terms of logic forwarded - is delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

===Mansour Jabalameli===

{{notavote}}

:{{la|Mansour Jabalameli}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mansour Jabalameli}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Mansour Jabalameli}})

This seems to be a pretty obvious case of being non-notable, but it does make a claim to being a "directory of some educational systems" - it is entirely possible that any reliable sources on him are in Persian, maybe? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete: Nice CV, but completely unknown and non-notable. Article claims he was awarded by International bodies, without stating what those supposed awards are. If they were international awards, there would be some international coverage in the media. However, with no reliable sources available, the article cannot be verified or maintained.--Lester 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Biography pages and directory listings from where the subject works (or has worked) does not make the subject notable. Other sources in this article do not even address the subject. As such, fails WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable sourcing, and I can't find any, that would help satisfy WP:PEOPLE. Akerans (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the provided links shows any notability, and I can't find any myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources and notability, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: There must be many references about his background in Persian or other languages. As well it is mentioned that he is certfied by such entities. Therefore he must have received certifications as mentioned in his website as well as other Persian weblogs. His website is hosted by Microsoft and any wrong information could have caused the website to be down. I believe based on the Wikipedia deletion policy, there is no wrong issue with this page. So I suggest this page to be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.227.26.167 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) — 77.227.26.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • Keep: The page has enough references. A person must not be super important to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is portal to share information on standard bases. There is no evelaution strategy for people in Wikipedia. There is no such base and standard to rate someone as useful, famous or normal. As far as references show, this page could be developed through contributions. As the history of this page shows, it has been created recently, so everyone must contribute to correct the page. Deletion without references is not logical. Besides, Persian and Arabic websites must go under search for more references. As wikipedia mentions; deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria. For a new page it is quite a very good startup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmantorin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: The reasons to delete this page are not strong. I cannot see a CV on this page and nor it should be a CV. Many of people are awarded or certified and their information is not public. Some of the references directly proved what it has been explained about him. I also recommend contributing and starting searching more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John-google (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) — John-google (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • Comment: Hmm, so we have Keep !votes from a registered editor who created the article, an IP who worked on it, and a new user who has only just registered an account. None of them knows how to sign their comments, none appears to understand notability, and all write in a very similar style of English. And both of the registered editors mistakenly added a {{tl|hangon}} to the article. Nah, that's not suspicious at all! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • {{adminnote}} The debate has been semi-protected to prevent further blatant vote-stacking. ~ mazca talk 21:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - do we really want to semi-protect this? The article creator will not be able to comment here... perhaps better to play whack-a-mole and tag each edit as it comes along? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • :I'm of the opinion that (a) he's already commented once, and (b) he's made it abundantly clear how he intends to continue commenting - via a succession of sockpuppets. Personally I consider it the easiest and least confrontational way of dealing with it, but I'm open to anyone overturning it if they wish. ~ mazca talk 08:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ::I've had several requests from new accounts to unlock the debate. I'm honestly dubious as to whether they're actually different people, but I guess we'll see. ~ mazca talk 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication of notability. Claims unsupported by references. Niky cz (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although the page has been created by an amateur, but the page has been attacked by Wikipedia professionals in its early moments of posting. I think this page needs more time to be well-framed under the wikipedia standards, therefore deletion is against the policies of Wikipedia unless a false reference would have been portrayed. A solutions is to offer more time85.137.107.129 (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — 85.137.107.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • :Deletion would be against policy only if the subject's notability had been shown according to the requirements of WP:N. If you think such notability has been demonstrated, please explain how - references from reliable independent sources talking about the the subject are what we need, and the 7 days that this discussion will run for should be plenty of time to find them should they exist. (And please note that the people contributing here are not "Wikipedia professionals" - we are all amateur volunteers, just like you) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • :I read the requirements of WP Notability and I found it suggests for pages to have viable references but not all of the framework must be in place. I also analyzed many of pages in WP and found it correct. This page has 4 direct references in which one of them is his personal website, two of them confirms his academic positions and one of them which is a list in wikipedia also listed him in a group of technical engineers. The references has been contributed by around two different users, which calls for more references, could the page survive. But not everyone on this planet know about this discussion and the deadline. Well I can see that some have mentioned that this page does not satisfy the notability guidelines and some have mentioned it general by a very simple link to the WP:Notability. The discussion must point the notability issues in a very specific manner, not referring one to the loads of pages of guideline in general. In fact, I believe the page creators tried to make it notable by the future hope of contributions from the page visitors.85.137.107.129 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ::Hi. if you check the WP:GNG section of WP:N, you will see it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." All I can see is references that confirm his academic and professional qualifications, and those do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (Please also note that I have removed one reference - a Wikipedia article can not be used as a reference, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source as per WP:RS) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ::Oh, I meant to add that if nobody can demonstrate sufficient notability by the end of this discussion, a copy of the article can be "userfied" (ie copied to a registered user's own space) so that it can be worked on further before being submitted as an article again - a registered editor who wished to take it would need to ask an administrator. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Thanks everybody for the discussion. Though the references are not so much, but the page can survive. Keeping and promoting the page with more references, just like thousands of pages in Wikipedia that have been created from a starting point, is the best decision.83.39.25.70 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 83.39.25.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

: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.