Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Mosun

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Mosun

Speedied and then contested; I don't think the subject meets WP:BIO but I'm going to give the article the benefit of community consensus.--Isotope23 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed WP:BIO and having been the one who has authored and contested the deletion of this article based on my points that I included in the talk page debate. I would add further that under the Criterion of notability, this person meets the following Criterion:

The person has been subject of numerous non trivial articles in various verifiable publications. (I indicated this with a list of the articles and direct links to them as well as their outside sources)

The person has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the hiistorical record in their field including the holding of patents and creation of processes related to the work in the field.

Under the Criterion of Alternative Verifiability:

All information can be verified and some already extends beyond a decade ago
Exandability is without question doable. In fact, this was being addressed prior to this marking of the article and the subsequent talk page and now this.
100 years. Yes, if people are interested in who built the gates that surround the shrine of Muhammad in Medina or who modernized the bronze windows at the library of parliament in Canada or who and what company built the International War Veterans memorial in Toronto Canada, or who and what company built the Baha'i temple in Santiago and so on.
Search Engine Alternative test will also return 100's of hit's from third party sources on this person.

Can an editor provide me with examples from the article that are out of line with the criterion of wikipedia? I don't believe anyone has done this yet and instead has kept referring to the wp:bio and so on but no specific references. Thanks for any help you can give in keeping this article of this notable person available for continued expansion. Djamieson 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references provided rise above trivial mentions (i.e. list of panelists). Accomplishment != notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Nothing in any of the sources indicates how the subject passes WP:BIO. There is no reliable bio of the subject, and all references are either events or directory listings, trivial per WP:N, or to a lesser extent about the company. What is more, User:Djamieson is a single user account which has been going around posting spamlinks to the soheilmosun.com website. Ohconfucius 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to me to be a clear WP:COI issue with the article which is evident both from the promotional tone, and the author's linkspamming activities, though in fairness I must point out that the author has strongly denied any problems with WP:AUTO or WP:COI. The sources provided on the article page do not establish notability per WP:BIO. The additional sources discussed on the talk page might well satisfy WP:CORP for the company in question, but not for the individual. If the article were to stay, it would need a complete re-write from reliable sources, if available, since currently it reads like an advert. CiaranG 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the author, per the questions at the top of the page: what is the source for, to pick but one example, this: "Darius’s parents met one another while working at a architectural model making firm. They became one of the top architectural model model making teams in the Toronto area.". CiaranG 08:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*'why isn't the article visible, when the speedy was contested and the afd hasn't closed? 'DGG 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there. CiaranG 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My blooper, sorry. I dint think to look beyond the header here.DGG 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now - I guess it was listed without using the proper template. I've added the header manually, hopefully without breaking anything. CiaranG 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I'm so old school I always forget to use the newer AfD templates... my fault.--Isotope23 20:30, 1 February 2007 (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.