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. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firouz Gaini[edit]

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

Fails prof test, self-promotion by non-notable academic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable academic.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I would say speedy delete as A7 because the claims of significance didn't seem credible to me, but someone else disagrees. It's a BLPPROD, as it has no sources, so I think that this AfD should be closed and the article proposed for deletion per BLPPROD. If it happens that a reliable source is added during the 7-day period, we can bring it back to AfD later. Gparyani (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason an article with a BLPPROD cannot be simultaneously taken to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gparyani's comment does not look to me like an argument for keeping: it looks like an argument for deleting, but unnecessarily prolonging and complicating the process by closing this discussion and perhaps later starting a new discussion on the same issue. There is no earthly advantage in doing it that way: the discussion which has been started may as well be allowed to run its course. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMICS criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same user just created a copy of this article with a slightly different title (Firouz Gaïni), which I have redirected here. Apparently, this is the correct orthography (although it should not make much difference for searches) and if the article is kept, it can be moved there. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (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.