Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tabar (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tabar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

a simple hedge fund manager with nothing to make him notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Sam Tabar is not a simple hedge fund manager but also founder and CEO of Airswap and Chief strategy officer of Fluidity, for verification please check Talk:Sam Tabar, Saad Ali (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* According to Wikipedia:Notability (people) section WP:BASIC which says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, such People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria. As Sam Tabar covered by Forbes, CNBC, Bloomberg News etc. which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject shows topic is notable.Saad Ali (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Saadbhai123 These have all been discussed at the previuos nomination and debunked. He paid someone to create his article a year ago, but that was deleted. He tried again this year, same result. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:MistyGraceWhite According to my little knowledge for paid editing Wikipedian should use Template:Undisclosed paid. According to template [[1]], if someone place this tag, he/she should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article.Saad Ali (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing compelling since last AfD. The aforementioned sources by the page creator are nothing. Being quoted in a few articles does nothing to establish notability. Per WP:QUACK there is very real UPE concerns, no matter how much the PC adds random userboxes to their page to hide that fact. Paid editing like this, which it almost certainly is, should go through the AfC process. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @ User:Sulfurboy Being new on Wikipedia I am confused with your discussion, because you say completely different from WP:BASIC. According to you Forbes, CNBC, Bloomberg News etc. resources are nothing which creates another confusion for a new editor like me because these resources are according to secondary sources. Being a Wikipedia reviewer anyone should stay positive and neutral. Last AFD began because the topic has less secondary sources, some resources were self-created, but in this version of the article, all the resources are enough to complete the notability of topic. Yes, you right no one can hide paid editing fact by using random userboxes, but another human fact is that they don't want to lose something on which they invest their time for learning, researching and creating a thing. The same human fact involves in my case, which is different from WP:QUACK concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadbhai123 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not at all notable in his field. StickyWicket (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ @ StickyWicket A Wikipedia Administrator User:Barkeep49 Review Sam Tabar, as page is nominated by User:MistyGraceWhite check his edit history, he almost nominate every article with same tag and start discussion for those articles, Please check his talk page number of people are protesting against his Vandalism. On the other hand if page is not notable please mention Wikipedia policy according to which you think this page is not notable.Saad Ali (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer - This is a double vote. Saad Ali is a duplicate account of Saadbhai123 (name similarity and identical user pages) Sulfurboy (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @ Sulfurboy both the account are same not duplicate, please don't miscommuncate.Saad Ali (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saadbhai123, You do realize you can't vote twice in the same AfD, right? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy I am beginner guy, I don't aware about voting relues and regulations. Please mention rules and regulation for voting so that I read and understand them for next time.Saad Ali (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saadbhai123, Instructions were already provided on your talk page. There's also instructions in an infobox at the top right of this AfD Sulfurboy (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy I will read and follow them from next time. Sam Tabar page has been reviewed by Administrator Barkeep49 page is notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) section WP:BASIC, this discussion should be closed and tag should be removed from page.Saad Ali (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imagine my surprise when I come to potentially close this AfD only to find that I've already been mentioned (multiple times). My review of this action was procedural in nature. At NPP if an article has been nominated for deletion at AfD it does not need to be further reviewed by new page patrollers. My review was in no way commenting on its notability (or lack there of). I frankly have no idea of its notability (or lack there of) beyond what I have now read in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially cryptospam stuff. No significant coverage of even the company in mainstream sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing more than PR spam, sourced entirely to black hat SEO fake news sites and nothing in the way of actual reliable coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2020 (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.