Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouzbeh Rashidi

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 procedural close. Other than the speedy deletion request (which has been denied) there is no valid rationale given for deletion (by either the nominator or subsequent !voters). Rashidi exists, and the content is backed up by reliable sources. NPASR if a new rationale is provided. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rouzbeh Rashidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fake content NoakesPJ (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Rouzbeh Rashidi Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouzbeh Rashidi[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are issues with this article (copy-paste content and questionable notability), but the nominator's two-word rationale is problematic: is "fake content" implying that the entire article is a hoax (which would not be the case, as basic verification is available, such as [1]), or that some content is fake (in which case it is a matter for normal editing rather than AfD)? I'm not sure a procedural close wouldn't be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Part of the article is a WP:COPYVIO, copyvio report. the rest is promotional and of no relevance. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Correction. the whole article is COPYVIO, but from more than one source. I am going to CSD tag the article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy declined - there is an old revision that has no copyright issues. I think some of the added content since then is also acceptable. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2017 (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.