Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahram Hooshyar Yousefi

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 of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 14:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bahram Hooshyar Yousefi

Probally vanity as it was created by user:Bhyousefi Jon513 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, just search the name "Bahram Hooshyar Yousef" by google, actually all of the claims has got documental positions, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.50.83 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom Spearhead 21:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, probably should be a speedy keep. Vanity is not grounds for deletion, and the subject of the article is considered notable enough, for example, to serve as a juror on a nontrivial prize competition at UC Berkeley [1], and is identified by that institution as an award-winning writer and a prominent writer/critic in his home country of Iran. And while I can't read a word of the one's I've found, there are enough online articles from the Iranian press by the guy to demonstrate notability. An object lesson for the many Afd nominators who don't bother to research the subjects they are enthusiastic to declare non-notable. Monicasdude 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Actually vanity is grounds for deletion. Stev0 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Reread that page; it says this quite explicitly: "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is." Vanity vigilantes who are more concerned with authorship than content do far more to damage Wikipedia than to improve it. It's one thing to beat up on goofy (but fundamentally harmless) articles by high school kids who identify themselves as Pope of Latveria, or whatever; it's quite another to slag rather modestly stated, factually impeccable articles that improve Wikipedia. Excessive fannishness is also a vanity signal, but somehow the label is never attached to 50,000 word articles on Pokemon characters, or the veritable hagiographies of musicians like Mariah Carey, or the episode-by-episode exegeses of wretched televison programs. Judge articles, not authors. Monicasdude 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Moe ε 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but change so it isn't vanity. --James 22:07, 1 April 2006 (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.