Deletion of Iman Farzin

Comment: as per , a subject must have ''received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject''; this is not the case here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The more this goes on, the less it adds up to me. We're told {{gn|we deleted it several times in fawiki}} and {{gn|we had a through discussion about this}}, yet looking at the page,https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86_%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%86 the deletions were M7 (equivalent to en-) i.e ''An article about a real person who does not show the importance of the subject''. M7/A7 is not discussed and the criteria is that the article doesn't show notability, as opposed to an AfD where it is discussed and the criteria is the subject is not notable, whether it's demonstrated on the page or not. I'm also getting concerned about the repeated, unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry and paid editing. This seems to me to be in contravention of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's decisions listed at 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:A7||WP:ASPERSIONS)

Comment: ping|Arash.pt}} and {{u|Sajjadimanian}} what happens at fa-Wiki stays at fa-Wiki. It is slightly worrying that no English language sources at all are used in the article, but others have said that the sources in use seem to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Firstly, it absolutely is not a requirement for an en.wiki article to have English language sources. Where they’re available that’s great, but where they’re not, we apply our sourcing policy as best we can to sources in other languages. Much of the current article is promotional fluff and can be cut out, e.g. that he’s a freelance photographer. It is still my view that refs 20-23 make him a  pass. Ref 20 is to the website of the Football News Agency where Farzin is the subject of the article headline and the entire story is about his accusations. Ref 21 is the Itabnak website where Farzin’s accusations are again the subject of the news story. Ref 22 is to a similar piece in INN where again Farzin’s accusation are the headline and subject of the story. Ref 23 likewise in a piece by the Young Journalists Club. Nobody has put up an argument to show that these sources are not independent or not reliable. Were Farzin’s accusations just sour grapes? Maybe. But they seem to have been given pretty widespread coverage. The strongest case against the article I can see is that the subject may fail  since in our terms the only genuinely notable thing about him is these accusations. There clearly are other sources for him dealing with other aspects of his career however, including multiple ones from the Mehr News Agency. So while the article can certainly be edited and stripped of refbombing there’s enough here of substance for me not to be comfortable with deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This has caused tremendous disruption across multiple Wikipedias. The sock vote stacking in this AfD is just one example of manipulation and blatent violations. Lady Justice is blindfolded and so should a vote be, but this level of disruption is beyond the pale. GNG is a guideline not a policy (I have no opinion if it passes GNG or not). Calling on  (policy) specfically -sense to put an end to the disruption
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:COMMON)

Comment: Solidly referenced to |reliable sources—to the extent of passing —and . Furthermore, the nomination is flawed per 1 (and could be speedily closed): after all, what happens of fa-wp ''stays'' on fa-wp, and no Wikipedia project is bound by the actions (or otherwise) of a sister project. Secondly, |paid editing is not yet a |reason for deletion. Indeed, it is probably an |argument to avoid in a discussion such as this. Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176|2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLPSOURCES||WP:ANYBIO||WP:SKCRIT||WP:PAID||WP:DELREASON||WP:ADHOM)

Comment: the subject meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)