Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehdi Golshani

Mehdi Golshani

Mehdi Golshani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  • You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

    @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:

    The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision^[1].

    So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:

    Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.^[2]

    So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• It might do to revisit some tacit assumptions, David Eppstein. I found a potted biography preceding the main interview in Richardson & Slack 2005, and whilst it has degrees, awards, and books it has no mention of membership of that organization. The claim to membership was not in this article for the first 10 years of its life, only being added without source nor edit summary in 2017. It's not even made in Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which merely claims, with zero sourcing, membership of a predecessor organization. Is the whole back-and-forth above based upon assuming as a given a claim that is not actually true? Certainly, even with the assumption, what the status of the SCCR is is irrelevant, as the (unsourced!) claim is that this person was a member of an appointed council of university professors in the Cultural Revolution HQ that preceded the 1984 foundation of the SCCR. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Richardson, Mark; Slack, Gordy, eds. (2005). "Mehdi Golshani: The Ladder To God". Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth. Routledge. pp. 121 et seq. ISBN 9781134516568.

• @Uncle G, The SCCR website, cites them as a former member, although the source is in Farsi/Persian. Xpander (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep -- Distinguished Professor at Iran's top research school is definitely enough for WP:PROF#C5. And positions in SCCR are enough for WP:POLITICIAN (agreed) as the nominatior says! Why are we doing this? -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk)

@Mscuthbert, Do you have an RS regarding the distinction claim? As for SCCR you can read the discussion above. Xpander (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.