Deletion of Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (2nd nomination)

Comment: The word "alleged" is only a bad thing in cases where it violates ; that isn't the case with this article, as all the major statements are sourced to news reports from reliable mainstream sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WEASEL)

Comment: Looking at , the (disputed) criteria is ''"... has been a '''primary subject''' of multiple ..."'' (emphasis mine). Of the four sources I could read, only one of them has him as the focus; the other three focus on the alleged victim. Not only that, there's no reliable source saying he's actually the one who sold the laptop; he could be a innocent bystander (for instance, if he had sold the laptop to someone else, who then resold it to the alleged victim). I also find it interesting that all the sources are from around the same time (30-31 May 2006); this strongly suggests both merely had their 15 minutes of fame, and nobody will care much 100 years from now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Passes , though could use some trimming
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING)

Comment: Strictly under , this article unfortunately passes muster. However, I'll apply the proposed  which is likely to gain consensus in a form that would support deleting this article. Even in the absence of , common sense indicates that we are not a directory of news stories, and if we have to cut off minor news stories this is a good place to start. The argument that the sources focus on the event, not the person, is also a good argument for not having an article ''at this title.'' Having said this, if this event happens to be discussed in an article describing its historical significance (if there is any), its significance to the study of Internet memes, etc., I don't think I would object to including the information in those kinds of contexts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Wanting to "set our sights on being great" is not a justification for ignoring policy. The "little house rules" are, presumably, there for a reason - so they should apply equally to everyone and every article. There is no policy which says "Wikipedia has a social responsibility to do good for the world". It's a neutral encyclopedia that reports verifiable fact - that's what NPOV is all about. And as for calling it "sub-tabloid tittle-tattle" and "cruft", isn't that a classic example of ? #Notability_is_not_subjective|Notability is not based on Wikipedia editors' subjective judgements. I just don't see which policy you're referring to in arguing for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:N)

Comment: the separate sources from the Daily Mail, BBC News and Times Online constitute multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party independent sources per . Therefore, this individual is notable. I don't see how this could be construed as an attack page either; it's not the role of Wikipedia to make subjective judgments about what might have "seriously damaged a person's life" or whether events are "embarrassing". This article is an accurate and factual report, containing no libel, and is sourced to third-party reliable media sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)