Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader Nadernejad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Nadernejad[edit]

Nader Nadernejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a co-producer, casting assistant and/or receiver of special thanks on short YouTube videos. This is not enough of a claim of notability to satisfy WP:CREATIVE in and of itself, and the sourcing ain't carrying him over WP:GNG either -- and there's a probable WP:COI, as the creator uses the plural first person we in their talk page comments about the past prod tagging of the article (and has never made a single edit to Wikipedia that was unconnected to this subject, either.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to have an article just because they exist -- it takes reliable source coverage, verifying a proper claim of notability, to earn an article on here. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sourced WP:BLP of a person notable as a credited film producer. This person is not a mere YouTube personality. This notable public figure holds numerous film credits. He is mentioned and featured in local and international news outlets. This person satisfies WP:CREATIVE for creating a significant body of work with other notable public figures. Sources have been updated to satisfy the WP:GNG. The guidelines were met and the person has been cited in outlets independent of himself. The proposed AfD is not based on constructive evidence, but weak speculation. Keep this WP:BLP as it adheres to the standards discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.79.234.49 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
— 66.79.234.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The references you've added do not satisfy WP:GNG nearly as well as you think they do. #1 = IMDb, which is not a source that can support notability (or is even valid for use as a reference at all; per WP:IMDB/RS, IMDb may be added to an article only as an external link, and not as a citation for the article content.) #2 through #4 = purely local media coverage in his own hometown market; acceptable for additional verification of facts if the rest of the sourcing around them were more solid, but not counting toward the establishment of encyclopedic notability. #5 = not actually about him at all, but merely namechecking his existence as the tweeter of a quote about the person who is the subject of the reference. #6 = more purely local media coverage in his own hometown market. #7 = a YouTube video, not a reliable source. #8 = a Tweet, not a reliable source. #9 = does not mention Nadernejad, but merely confirms a fact about Vita Chambers which is entirely irrelevant to Nadernejad, and thus does not speak to Nadernejad's notability at all. #10 = another YouTube video. #11 = article where he's a bylined author of the content, not the subject of it, and thus not supporting notability. #12 and #13 = more purely local hometown coverage, not able to confer encyclopedic notability.
A person does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because you can add any footnotes at all which verify that they exist — certain specific types of referencing have to be present to verify certain specific markers of achievement, and none of the references you've added are valid ones. You say, for example, that he's also received international media coverage — but you haven't shown a single media source outside of Peterborough, except for that Toronto Star article that fails to even mention his name.
Note, as well, that notability is not inherited, so "has worked with other notable people" does not constitute a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP:BLP required some minor edits, it is enough to claim notability by community standards. The subject is listed on IMDb as a film producer with a number of credits. In addition to this, the subject has interviewed and worked with other notable public figures. He is listed independently on a various news outlets with specific focus on his media endeavours and projects. Consensus is important to Wikipedia and the platform should work to Keep and improve articles with reliable source coverage. BeaverTails18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
— BeaverTails18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Being listed on IMDb does not constitute an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and neither is "has interviewed and worked with other notable figures" — and the "various news outlets" that have been added to the article as references are all local coverage limited to his own hometown, but "local kid does stuff" coverage in the local media is not enough in and of itself to demonstrate that he belongs in an encyclopedia for that stuff as of yet. A filmmaker does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because his body of work exists — reliable source coverage about him and the work has to verifiably demonstrate the notability of that body of work, and none of the newly added referencing here has shown that at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The threshold of "significant coverage" has not been met. A few exposes in local news papers does not meet the definition of "significant". --Jayron32 17:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I ever use the words you just said that I used. It's quite odd to be misquoted when the statement you misquote isn't heard, but actually written, and written a few millimeters above the misquote. --Jayron32 00:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was only addressing an unfortunate wished for WP:SUBSTANTIAL. I will now strike my arguments. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed above why the sources in question do not pass WP:GNG: The Arthur is a university student newspaper; the Star link serves only to confirm a tangential fact about one of his collaborators while not even containing a mention of his name at all; CNN iReport is a user-generated content site to which anybody can submit any "news" they want; PTBO Canada and My Kawartha are community weekly papers in the subject's own hometown; The Coast is an article he wrote, not an article somebody else wrote about him (a person gets over GNG by being the subject of sources written by other people, not by being the bylined author of sources about other things); and The Wolf isn't about him, but merely embeds a tweet from him in an article about somebody else — and the Google News search brings up zero additional sources beyond the ones that have already been established as inadequate. This is not adequate sourcing to pass GNG — a person does not pass GNG if the best you can do for sourcing is a few pieces of "local boy makes good" human interest coverage in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You feel you "addressed" them again, BUT in repeating, you express a failure to understand that a topic being sourced does not have to be the sole topic of a source, just so long as it is spoken of directly and in detail. I remind that your wished for WP:SUBSTANTIAL and WP:SOLETOPIC are not policies nor guides. So please... tell me how you've personally determined that CNN's award winning I-report is unsuitable or please share the Wikipedia discussion at WP:RSN that tells us it does not meet WP:RS so that we can then go through ALL of Wikipedia and remove the thousands upon thousands of times CNN is used to source thousands of articles.... for if any portion of authored CNN content is unreliable, then all authored CNN content is suspect. I'd love to read how others drew your conclusions, as personally deciding authored articles in otherwise reliable sources are unsuitable is not convincing. No sale. Thanks Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
iReport is not CNN-authored content — it's a "citizen journalism" section of CNN's website to which anybody can upload their own self-created video reporting of any "news" they want to "report", entirely without oversight from professional journalists. I can upload video of a trivial fender-bender in a parking lot to iReport if I want to. You can upload a video of your cat playing with a bottlecap if you want to. Anybody who's trying to create self-published sourcing for a Wikipedia article can upload video of themselves if they want to. People can upload outright hoaxes to iReport if they want to. This fact does not invalidate content created by CNN's staff on the regular website or the channel — iReport is USER-GENERATED CONTENT, which is a class of sourcing we do not allow to carry notability in a Wikipedia article, while CNN's actual staff are professional journalists.
So your false dichotomy that we have to remove all CNN sourcing from all of Wikipedia if we don't accept iReport here simply does not wash, because iReport and content actually created by real CNN staff are not the same thing. A couple of phrases from our article on iReport that you might want to think about, if you're still not getting what I'm saying: "There have been several cases where hoax stories placed on that service were given credence by their apparent connection to CNN"; and "Submissions are not edited, fact-checked, or screened before they post." That's why iReport doesn't count toward notability: there is no editorial control over what gets submitted to it.
And just for the record, I express no failure to understand anything. A person's tweet being requoted in an article about somebody else does not assist in getting the tweeter over GNG. A person entirely failing to be mentioned at all in a news article about some second person does not assist in getting the first person over GNG. "Local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in their own local media does not assist in getting them over GNG. Self-published content on user-generated content sites like YouTube or iReport does not assist in getting a person over GNG. This is not me failing to understand anything, or applying tendentious personal interpretations of policy — there simply isn't a single source here that satisfies GNG. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You win. I fold. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was first proposed for deletion for variety of reasons which have been satisfied. Now the issue surrounds passing WP:GNG. Sources that were not enough to help the subject pass WP:GNG have been corrected and improved. It would strike an editor reviewing articles in good faith to correct the citations of a subject instead of using one or two poor citations to propose an entire article for deletion. Furthermore, articles that are independent of the subject prove that the subject passes WP:GNG. Independent sources verify that the subject has an online following of hundreds of thousands. In addition, the subject has appeared on national media outlets. Sources verify that the subject is a film producer, has interviewed public figures on radio, wrote to the leaders of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference with other notable Nova Scotian's, and much more. Despite an online presence that satisfies notability, the subject meets WP:GNG through the many things he has achieved in the public eye. It is important to consider the collection of information provided to avoid creating a straw man argument based on one or two sources. Per WP:GNG, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected", which has been met and exceeded. BeaverTails18 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources are generally expected in order to pass GNG, which is why the reasons for the deletion nomination have not been satisfied. This was not a case of "one or two" poor citations which have been "corrected and improved" — it's a case involving 13 poor citations, which is the entirety of the citation pool here. There has yet to be even one citation added that would contribute anything to getting him over GNG. When it comes to demonstrating notability in a Wikipedia article, the standard that a source has to meet to be valid is not "any webpage at all that confirms the information cited to it, even if it was self-published by the subject" — only certain specific types of sources count as reliable ones for the purposes of supporting notability, and none of the sources shown here are of the appropriate type. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Peterborough Examiner is a source of the appropriate type to name one. Please refer to Postmedia and calculate the frequency it is cited in articles of notable public figures. User:DefineWanderlust (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— DefineWanderlust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
He's from Peterborough, so a "local teen does stuff" human interest piece in the Peterborough Examiner does not get him over WP:GNG if it's the best you can do for sourcing. If the rest of the sourcing around it were solid, then the Examiner would be fine — but it cannot carry a person over GNG by itself as the only acceptable source in the mix, as it's local to his own hometown and thus fails to demonstrate that he has the wider recognition necessary to get into an encyclopedia as of yet. It's not just a question of "published by Postmedia ergo GNG met"; it's also a question of the context in which that coverage is being given, and "local teen" human interest coverage in his own local newspaper is not a context that makes him internationally encyclopedic by itself, if media coverage beyond Peterborough is entirely nonexistent. And your "non-admin closure" on the basis of "nomination withdrawn" was a cute stunt — but as the nominator, I get to decide if and when this is withdrawn, not you. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As lacking notability. The disgusting behaviour of COI editors, namely vandalism, socking and harassment makes for a pretty good case as well. AusLondonder (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a little bit more context, the behaviour AusLondoner is talking about has included vandalism to my user talk page (which was clearly connected to this, because the only other Wikipedia edit the vandal ever made before trying to fling feces at my face was to remove the AFD template from the article while this discussion was still open); several attempts by both DefineWanderlust and BeaverTails18 to unilaterally declare this discussion closed under the false pretense that the nomination had been withdrawn; and a deceptive request (which WP:BOOMERANGed) at RFPP to have the article protected against the restoration of the AFD template on the grounds that the restoration was vandalism. Obviously we ultimately have to judge this situation on the article's compliance or lack thereof with policy, rather than the bad behaviour of some of the participants — but it's important that editors are aware of what's been going on. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just another interesting twist: The original name on the account BeaverTails18 (talk · contribs) (creator of this article under discussion) was PeterboroughExaminer (talk · contribs) as of two weeks ago. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 06:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as his listed works and frankly also the listed sources here are not at all convincing of keeping or improving if that were to happen, simply nothing else convincing to apply notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being the product of a sockmaster and his sockpuppets. IF or when young Nader Nadernejad gains irrefutable coverage to meet WP:BASIC, the article can be rewritten buy some non-puppet. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 15 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nader_Nadernejad&oldid=1138110584"