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. joe decker ^talk 21:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hatef Mokhtar

[edit]

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

Looks like biographical spam. Individual is not noteworthy (for now). References on the article include primarily links to his own writings; was unable to find non-trivial references that establish him as being the subject of news himself. He is the editor of a minor publication, has written some articles for even more minor publications, and he won a minor book award (in a contest that you pay to enter, which are generally self-promotional opportunities or scams to rip people off). The book's other "major" accomplishment is that it can be found in a library that has >250,000 holdings. Has started minor non-newsworthy or article-worthy organizations. He has 190K Twitter followers, but presumably these are fake/purchased since he never gets more than one or two likes/favourites, and they don't establish notability in any case. (And his own former homepage is no longer up and running, so on his Twitter he treats this Wikipedia article as his homepage. In other words, he uses it for marketing.) The article was started by a user named "Engageinfomedia", which is the name of a marketing company. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I adopt @Bueller 007's rationale. The article is more autobiographical than encyclopaedic. Quis separabit? 17:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Curro2 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as mentioned as the article would appear acceptable at first given the listed sources but then I see it is not actually as solid as it could be. Also, there are no signs yet this better satisfies the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 12 January 2016 (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.