Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ahmadvand

: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. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

=[[Mohammad Ahmadvand]]=

:{{la|Mohammad Ahmadvand}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammad_Ahmadvand Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mohammad Ahmadvand}})

There does not seem to be any notability for this rather routine university teacher. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • In response to DGG, it should be considered that Mohammad Ahmadvand is a truly good expert in his field because he has had many publications as well as AN INNOVATION in his field. Furthermore, he is also a journalist and a writer which gives him a high stand among individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.255.85.69 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. The obscure and/or self-published sources used as references do not convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete All of the sources are primary. There is no independent coverage of him. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2014 (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.