Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagher Moazen

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. There was consensus that the sourcing was inadequate to demonstrate notability. I did consider WP:MUSICBIO, but the sourcing available did not indicate such clear applicability to override the arguments to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagher Moazen

Bagher Moazen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks promotional, couldn't find proper sources for him. Ladsgroupoverleg 11:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have to say this is the best developed G11 i've seen. I almost hate to delete it being so perfect, but it is a BLP, and fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
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.