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 no consensus. Discussion about reverting to a different version of the article and other aspects of the article can be discussed further on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Sabet[edit]

Hossein Sabet (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)

Doesn't have anything particularly notable to his name, most of the current sources are dead and/or only give a passing mention, and overall the article feels a little promotional, disregarding the part about the jail sentence he received. Layla ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ 14:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources in German are just as valid as sources in English, and previous versions of the article, such as this one had some sources in English including a New York Times profile. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anyone thinks that the first clause of this statement doesn't make sense, I would point out that the nominator changed the nomination statement after there had been some replies, rather than following the customary procedure of striking. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @Layla, the remover: Note that per WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course sources in German are just as good as ones in English, and giving that as a reason for deletion is absurd. However, a check of a sample of the sources, both in the current version of the article and in the October 2010 version linked by the IP editor, suggest that they are all either dead links or sources which mention Hossein Sabet, but do not give substantial coverage. For example, the New York Times article is not a "profile" of October 2010: it is an article about the island of Kish; it includes a little coverage of a hotel owned by Hossein Sabet, and in the course of doing so mentions him several times, but it is not substantially about him, which calling it a "profile" might suggest. Since I have not checked all of the references, I am not committing myself to either "keep" or "delete", but on the basis of the sample of references which I have looked at, it looks unlikely that there is sufficient evidence of notability. I hope to come back when I have time to check more thoroughly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as sources in German are acceptable, so are sources that are properly cited but no longer available on the Internet, such as those from Die Zeit and The Globe and Mail cited in that earlier version of the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interest of transparency I have to say that I am the editor who added sources in 2010. I'm pretty sure that those that are no longer available online had significant coverage of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I confirm that I am the person currently editing from IP address 86.17.222.157. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep  This edit by a SPA removed the reliable NY Times source and introduced BLP violations.  The nomination that followed by 25 minutes suggests a connection between this SPA and the nominator.  Even without this connection, the nomination fails to show WP:BEFORE D1 workmanship on Google books to explain the 1989 book Iran: from royal dictatorship to theocracy which has the snippet, "The businesses of two leading industrialists, Habibollah Elghanian and Hossein Sabet, were closed down, and both were imprisoned on the charges of profiteering."  Other notes that the nomination fails to make are that there are Persian and German [1] Wikipedia articles.  Also, the "Der Abend" link in the article has a proper target in [2], which also has sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOT in fact applies because it's clear business advertising and that all alone is always a convincing basis because we as an encyclopedia have never accepted advertising and, as long we're an independent encyclopedia, we never will. The SK comment has no policy-backed basis and nothing else to suggest there's a genuine speedy need. This article has clear signs of WP:NOT violations because it's only business-focused, including such specifics as business plans. As it is, the comments about the sourcing above themselves show no one has been able to find suitable sourcing hence nothing to suggest an accepted article, and in this, it violates our non-negotiable policies, these exact which maintain Wikipedia itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 4 February 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.