Scottywong (talk | contribs) !voted to Delete, added ARSnote template |
→Farhad Hakimzadeh: - delete |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{tl|rescue}} by the [[WP:Article Rescue Squadron|Article Rescue Squadron]]. [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#DD0000">Snotty<font color="#994400">Wong</font></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confess]]</small></sup> 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{tl|rescue}} by the [[WP:Article Rescue Squadron|Article Rescue Squadron]]. [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#DD0000">Snotty<font color="#994400">Wong</font></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confess]]</small></sup> 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:BLP1E]]. [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#DD0000">Snotty<font color="#994400">Wong</font></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confess]]</small></sup> 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:BLP1E]]. [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#DD0000">Snotty<font color="#994400">Wong</font></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confess]]</small></sup> 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' - With luck we'll get a closing admin who will discount the keep votes as largely fraudulent. Let's quote from [[WP:BLP1E]]; ''"Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."'' This person is only in the news for committing this crime. This person is otherwise a low-profile individual. What else can be said about the crime, that it led to improved security at the British Library? Gee, ya think? This is pure one-event and [[WP:NOTNEWS]] material, and should serve as a general caution to creation-happy editors to not just scan today's headlines and pick out something they think is interesting. I was about to point out the surprise at [[Owen Honors]] still thankfully being a redlink, then saw in post preview that it was not. Off to weigh in on yet another pointless article... [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:39, 5 January 2011
Farhad Hakimzadeh
- Farhad Hakimzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject seems to be a bit of a classical fit for WP:1E. From a search on google news, there is clearly a good amount of coverage about this singular event. But the only coverage not surrounding this event that I could find is his mention here. It explains there that he is the "chief executive of the Iranian Heritage Foundation", but i'm not sure if that's really enough. Especially considering that it seems that there is no Iranian Heritage Foundation article on its own. A Google Books search brings up a lot of mentions, but they seem to all fall under the category of thanking him for his help in making the book or publications that he was involved in. Not really any notability to be had there. A Scholar search brings up much the same thing, a bunch of thank you's and not much else. I don't believe there is really enough notability to be had on this subject other than this one event that he is involved in. SilverserenC 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nuke it from high orbit - it's classic BLP1E and seems to serve only to disparage its subject. His one crime dominates the entire article, in fact the opening line is a complete joke. Kill it with fire already :( - Alison ❤ 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete News sources? Yes. Evidence of fame? No. In terms of people, I tend to accept the latter. Minimac (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete WP is not a record of (fairly) minor crimes, however unusual. Wolfview (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. When I created this article this story was all over the news. WP:1E and BLP1E don't forbid us from having articles on those convicted of serious crimes; they merely discourage us from unduly highlighting insignificant people rather than the single event they are known for. The subject was convicted of the crimes, and news coverage was significant as discussed above; much of the coverage does focus on the individual who perpetrated these crimes. Perhaps a move to a different title would be a compromise? The event was pretty notable and in my opinion deserves an article, even if the consensus now is that the subject doesn't, something I am not fully convinced of myself. --John (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Generally, when you're dealing with a significant event, you make an article on the event itself, not the people involved in the event. That's pretty much exactly what WP:1E says. I think you'd be better off just making the event from scratch, you don't need this article, it has practically nothing in it. SilverserenC 08:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
*Delete. Minor flurry of news stories at the time, but no sign of enduring notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. Has continued in 2010 to receive coverage since the event. A look at the Category:Convicted book-thieves shows that the convention is to create articles about the thief rather than the thieving. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's nice, William Jacques is maybe something this article can aspire to. Lack of content isn't grounds for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as per WP:GNG; the subject has received significant press coverage. Besides, were not talking about "minor crimes" here, and the article shows that the subject is famous for more than one event. Any bias toward the subject or lack of content can be tagged and improved. Wikipedia is a work in progress, right? Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep- this person's notability seems to be established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The other problems with this article are likely to be fixable through regular editing. Reyk YO! 05:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Pontificalibus,s accurate reasonings for keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: clear WP:BLP1E, and a recent (and far smaller) flurry of coverage centring around his eventual conviction for that self-same 1 event does not alter the fact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A historic event to be sure. How often does something like this happen? Ample coverage. A lasting effect of this person's actions, is the British Library increased their security dramatically, I adding that into the article with a reference to the BBC news. Dream Focus 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete clearly WP:ONEVENT. Everyone upgrades security after a theft in your home, office etc, that's routine. 210.56.72.185 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is, however, that a home theft does not typically receive "significant coverage in [independent] reliable sources", so it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. The subject in question does. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The event in question does, not the person, which is exactly what WP:BLP1E states. SilverserenC 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then why is one of the references titled "The thief who stole pages from history" and provides what is certainly "significant coverage" of Hakimzadeh? Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only four sentences in that reference is about him. And it all relates, regardless, to the singular event. This article should be about this one event, which will never be more than just this event. SilverserenC 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Only four sentences"? The article in question mentions Hakimzadeh by name 18 times! The article is centered on Hakimzadeh and (arguably) provides "significant coverage" of Hakimzadeh from the very first sentence ("To staff at the British Library, Farhad Hakimzadeh seemed...") to the very last line ("But the actual reasons why this wealthy and cultured man defaced..."). Guoguo12--Talk-- 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete WP:BLP1E, if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? no. WP:PERP applies. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- This passes #3 of WP:PERP, and WP:BLP1E does not suggest deletion, simply that the article should be renamed to 2008 British Library thefts or similar. Is that what you are arguing for? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- no, please stop putting words into my mouth. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- But you are citing polcies to support your "Delete" argument that only justify a renaming of the article. Do you have a genuine reason for deletion rather than the fact you don't like the article name? Do you think the entire event is non-notable perhaps? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- my delete !vote stands. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but that doesn't justify deletion, only renaming. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- my delete !vote stands. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- But you are citing polcies to support your "Delete" argument that only justify a renaming of the article. Do you have a genuine reason for deletion rather than the fact you don't like the article name? Do you think the entire event is non-notable perhaps? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- no, please stop putting words into my mouth. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
it justifies deletion, my !vote stands so please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. LibStar (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought this was meant to be a debate. WP:BLUDGEON would apply if I repeated the same point in reply to many people, it doesn't apply whenever someone highlights flaws in your argument. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
if you are right then it would be a snow keep. but since you say you are right you must be right. you still qualify for BLUDGEON by "This is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view." LibStar (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Move Since he is notable for a crime only, we should rename and make it a crime article. Soewinhan (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Move and focus the article on the crime. Clearly there is a will to preserve the information about the crime itself, and whilst I'm not convinced the crime passes notability, the debate here has been about whether there should be an article about the person. As the person is solely notable in connection with this theft, it's a clear WP:BIO1E. If anyone questions whether the crime is notable, that's better discussed in a fresh AfD without the notability of the person muddying the issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - With luck we'll get a closing admin who will discount the keep votes as largely fraudulent. Let's quote from WP:BLP1E; "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This person is only in the news for committing this crime. This person is otherwise a low-profile individual. What else can be said about the crime, that it led to improved security at the British Library? Gee, ya think? This is pure one-event and WP:NOTNEWS material, and should serve as a general caution to creation-happy editors to not just scan today's headlines and pick out something they think is interesting. I was about to point out the surprise at Owen Honors still thankfully being a redlink, then saw in post preview that it was not. Off to weigh in on yet another pointless article... Tarc (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)