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. It's still unclear on whether or not User:79.97.57.92 is the subject and it would have been better if she were to have contacted OTRS but per the second part of WP:BIODEL and the one delete !vote based on "straight notability", I'm going to go ahead and ring this up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karishmeh Felfeli[edit]

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

This article was PRODed by User:79.97.57.92, however I think this may be controversial so I've XFDed it instead. I appoligise if this was the wrong thing to do. Following is the reason User:79.97.57.92 stated for PROD: "as the person about whom this article is written, I would prefer to not have information about myself online. I have no idea who created this page, but for personal and professional reasons I would prefer not to have a wiki presence. I am happy to verify my ID in any way necessary." Callanecc (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming User:79.97.57.92 is Karishmeh Felfeli than I believe WP:BIODEL is the most applicable policy. It would seem thtat the primary question would be whether Felfeli is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". Callanecc (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The identity of the PRODding user as the subject of the article is apparently confirmed below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BIODEL has "people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." At a brief glance, there is enough material out there to permit an article, but "not generally well known" seems a fair summary, so if she wants out, that's her choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiswick Chap do you mean WP:NPF? Callanecc (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:NPF and WP:BIODEL apply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good that's what I thought :). Thanks, Callanecc (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would seem rather odd to post oneself on Facebook and then say one "would prefer to not have information about myself online." •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my comment above. Apparently that Facebook page is about the subject, not by the subject, and is extracted from this Wikipedia article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not have a facebook page, nor do I use facebook. I clicked the link above, to find that it is a facebook 'wikipedia' page. Again, requesting deletion of the wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.57.92 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be clear on my position. I believe that a delete would in in accordance with WP:BIODEL and WP:NPF in that it would seem that Felfeli is "relatively unknown" (WP:BIODEL) and is "not generally well known" (WP:NPF). Given that, to the best of our knowledge, Felfeli has requested deletion my opinion is that it should be deleted. Assuming there are no "keeps", in accordance with WP:BIODEL the article can be deleted. Callanecc (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not because of BIODEL; I don't think he's notable enough for an article at all. The sourcing isn't great, and it doesn't really establish any substantial notability, so I'm voting delete purely on notability grounds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (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.