Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Yazdan

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Yazdan

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep: Yazdan is notable as he has won several awards and appeared on television a few times for his work. Additionally, the deletion reasons for this article were initially hoax and unsourced BLP, which are both clearly not the case. Piguy101 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the discussion on PopeOfRacing's talkpage. Piguy101 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thanks for thinking I am notable, however I am not a public figure. Yes I saved a little boy from a car that had died of an asthma attack. I was just doing my job and what anyone else would have done. Many doctors save the life of someone. This is not notable, its our job and duty. Many doctors have been on the TV show "The Doctors". In fact, every episode features 6 new doctors and there are about 150 new episodes every year! Thats 900 doctors that go on that TV show yearly. That doesn't make me special at all. Im sure 99% of them do not have a wikipedia about them. I think wikipedia is a great resource for notable, public people etc. Thats not me. Everything I have done is the same as 90% of my other colleagues. Thanks PopeOfRacing (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — PopeOfRacing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: I agree that this doesn't make Yazdan a public or notable figure. I think it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.211.9 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — 174.67.211.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: I agree that this is not a public figure— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badluckm3 (talk • contribs) 20:39, May 20, 2014 (UTC) — Badluckm3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: If every doctor that went on the TV show the doctors had a wikipedia, there would be a lot of useless information on wikipedia. It doesn't seem Yazdan is notable enough to have this article so I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssriley97 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Ssriley97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: After reading the article and researching it, this doesn't belong on expedia. I can understand Dr. Oz being on expedia. But no reason for Dr. Yazdan Article to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.60.141 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC) {{SPA|107.193.60.141||[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy; it is a consensus. Number of arguments is irrelevant; content of argument is essential. All of the points here seem to say the same thing with little additional opinions, leading me to my next point: I see that all of the users (except for me and User:PopeOfRacing) who have posted here have this page as their only contribution, indicating sock puppetry, a Wikipedia "no-no." I believe that some dubious scheme is going on because of this and the arguments lack true merit. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notable acts, seems like he has done the routine duties of his job.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.99.207 (talk • contribs) 22:18, May 20, 2014 (UTC) — 68.101.99.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I agree with Piguy101... However I'm unsure as what the dubious scheme is though and since I'm new to wiki I don't know what sock puppetry is! PopeOfRacing (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions are always welcomed! See Sock puppetry. To summarize the page: users must only use one account. By using IP's addresses and accounts from the same person is against the Wikipedia policy and may lead to blocking. Sock puppetry is used to give undue weight to discussions as it makes it look like many people support a particular idea or opinion, although it really is one person using multiple accounts. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not belong on wiki. This is not a notable or public figure and although being a hero is great, he was just doing his job (seems like Dr. Yazdan even states that himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This AfD was not listed on the day's AfD log when created. It was listed on the 20 May 2014 log by Auric on 15 July 2014‎, but it is better to list the discussion on the current day's log to increase participation.
I am now relisting this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 16, so this should not be closed until after seven full days from this timestamp.
I found this AfD from an ANRFC post. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close? This article hasnt't been nominated correctly as there is no reason for deletion. PopeOfRacing's comments are clearly fake and all these accounts are clearly WP:SPA's. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am NOT a sock puppet and believe that this does not meet WP:BIO criteria. He has (a) acted as any other doctor would and (b) has received some fairly non-notable media exposure and (c) the combination of the two do not warrant any further consideration. Also, the article seems like an advertisement and not WP:NPOV.--Rpclod (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's close this weird discussion now, as JayJay says, and if it comes here again in the future, we may discuss it calmly. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to explain my weird nomination. The article was CSDed and PRODed twice, so I opened a discussion with a keep nomination. I did not realize that there were better ways to discuss this when I did so. Honestly, I have no current opinion if the article should stay or not, but all the socks should be ignored. Piguy101 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a doctor he does not meet notability requirements; nothing notable about his practice, and nothing at all found at Google Scholar. Appearing on TV a few times is not enough. The spate of news coverage over "saving a boy's life" is BLP1E. I am very suspicious of the spate of SPAs that all came rushing here to get this article deleted, including one who claimed to be the subject; something organized was going on there. But that was two months ago, and ignoring all of them still results in a Delete recommendation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (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.