Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Malekzadeh (entrepreneur)

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. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Malekzadeh (entrepreneur)[edit]

[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)

This is a promotional article where none of the sources listed demonstrate the notability of the subject. At best, he is mentioned in passing in sources. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ IMO the subject is notable, but the article must be fixed. It is entirely a promotional piece.JalenPhotos2 (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — After additional consideration, I have changed my mind. This article is too far gone to be salvaged. Delete. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. Indeed, the article is too PROMO. Most of the sources are primary or just spam. However, there are several good sources, like the CNN interview. The subject was the public face of VMware for many years. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure what interview you're referring to. The only CNN source is this one, which only mentions the subject in passing. Also note that interview-style articles cannot be use to satisfy WP:GNG. When you talk about the other "several good sources", which ones are you referring to exactly? Because I only see crap in the references section. Mottezen (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business 2.0 is not crap. Several universities libraries collect this edition, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=fDQiAQAAMAAJ I don't agree that the subject is mentioned in passing. If you remove his words the statements will lose foundation in this article. Moreover, the same phrases are cited in other sources, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=XO4bAQAAMAAJ Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is the only paragraph where Malekzadeh is mentioned in the 23-pararaph article: For instance, in response to customers' ceaseless clamoring for easier remote access to their corporate networks, Cisco scouts tracked down an obscure little outfit called Twingo. Engineers Reza Malekzadeh and Gregorie Gentil founded the startup 20 months ago with less than $100,000 of their own money. They bought used hardware on Craigslist, hired a few part-time coders, and within 12 months had come up with Twingo Secure Desktop, an ingenious technology that allows road warriors to securely connect to their office computers from any Web browser. Some VCs expressed interest in the company, but Malekzadeh says Twingo realized that what it had created was "more a feature for a product than a company." When Cisco dangled a $5.5 million cash offer, Twingo bit. "It's not such a bad thing to just be an addition to an existing product," Malekzadeh says. "It's OK not to go public.". Simply put, this is not significant coverage. Mottezen (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the quantitative approach (counting the paragraphs, sources, words). Books may have even more than 23 paragraphs. So, should we ignore them because of that? In this case what matters is the fact that 2 independent reputable sources (Business 2.0 and the Entrepreneurship magazine) cited the subject to support certain statements. This means that they trusted the notability of the subject. Maybe that's because the subject was invited to several international conferences. Maybe this guy just fooled everybody like many others do. If there were more good sources I'd voted for a strong keep, not a weak one. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "The quantitate approach", this is a clause of WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The paragraph above is clearly trivial coverage. Just one example used by the author to demonstrate a point.

And I don't have access to the Entrepreneurship magazine text, but if cites "the same phrases" as you said above, then I presume that it doesn't provide significant coverage either. Mottezen (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google books lets you preview the text without having full access: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=XO4bAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Reza+Malekzadeh It's exactly the same text. The fact that the claim is supported by reliable secondary sources is exactly the opposite of original research. If the subject is not notable, then why at least 2 editorials are citing him to demonstrate specific claims? They don't cite random people. In my opinion this is totally not trivial coverage. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if its "exactly the same text", then it counts as the same source. If we were to count this paragraph as significant coverage, that would still just be one RS. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mottezen (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to read more opinions. If nobody else wants to vote I'll agree with your point. Maybe this level of coverage is really not good enough. I've removed my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, beneath the promo there is some coverage of the subject: this and this. Agreed that much of this is promo however. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider these two sources reliable either. The first source contains extensive citations of subject's words, which usually means the source might be significantly influenced by the subject. Also, the site is very strange: it appears to be just someone's early attempt to make a personal blog or news website (journalism excercise, perhaps). It has only a few news-style articles on random topics. It looks like someone has an FTP hosting and dropped some files in there (top-level dir). Files include some personal-looking stuff like excerpts from random emails and photo backups. The second source consists entirely of quotations from press release made by subjects' employer (the rest is filler words and transition sentences). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are either directly promotional or are not sufficiently independent to be reliable. Anton.bersh (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite there yet. Also, too much promotion. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article with insufficient sourcing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 17 July 2021 (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.