Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehran Rowshan

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. Not speedily only because it has essentially run seven days Star Mississippi 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Rowshan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely promotional/paid editing; the only ref with WP:DEPTH from a third-party source (The Liverpool Echo) is actually a "partner source/advertorial" OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only RS I find is the Liverpool Echo article, nothing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Liverpool Echo piece is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are not enough reliable sources to establish enough notability to justify keeping. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note I've blocked the article's author as the sock of a blocked spammer. The article would be eligible for G5 deletion, but since this discussion is up and running I guess it can run its course. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:RS, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:TNT. I agree with the crowd. The sources are terrible (blogs, the formerly good Newsweek that is now deprecated, etc.). In 2023, everyone knows we are not a free web host for your spam. There are too many typos to fix quickly (TomeOut?). Bearian (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.