Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Meshksar


 * 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. ✗ plicit  01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ali Meshksar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Meshkar's company “EA Home Design” was deleted via AfD back in Dec 2021. It was recreated about two weeks ago under a different title but also deleted.

While this article is about the founder and not the company, it more or less suffers from the same issues (paid promotion/lacking independent coverage). Seeking deletion for failing WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and Virginia.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Paid promotion is a no go, the Forbes article seems useful though. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was written via "BrandVoice" which is essentially sponsored content .-KH-1 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Forbes piece does not meet RS requirements, as it is a contributor piece and thus fails WP:FORBESCON on WP:RSP. --Kbabej (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete is my vote, no notable sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete we lack sufficient indepdent secondary sources that are reliable to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, , , look promising. I suspect there's a significant media coverage. Codabray (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the sources you mentioned, the first (on mint) mentions the subject twice with his quotes; there is no independent analysis of the subject. There is also no author byline; it's written by "HT Brand Studio", which I'm assuming is some sort of promotional tool. The second on Entrepreneur  is an op-ed piece. The third on Forbes is by a contributor and thus fails WP:FORBESCON on WP:RSP. So unfortunately, no, none of the sources you mentioned meet the RS requirement. Kbabej (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you're the creator of this article. Wouldn't you include the best sourcing from the article's creation? How do you not know if there's more significant media coverage if you've done the research and determined the subject is notable enough to have a WP page? --Kbabej (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is basically a promotional CV. As stated above, the sources don't meet the RS requirements. Here goes my assessment, though please forgive not using an assessment table:
 * 1. The Forbes article is by a contributor and thus fails WP:FORBESCON on WP:RSP.
 * 2. The Entrepreneur article is an op-ed piece.
 * 3. The Homesnap is a company listing of his daughter and does not mention the subject. [Since removed.]
 * 4. The Mint piece mentions the subject twice with his quotes; there is no independent analysis of the subject. There is also no author byline; it's written by "HT Brand Studio", which I'm assuming is some sort of promotional tool.
 * 5. The Chartable piece is an interview.
 * 6. The TuneIn source is another interview on a podcast.
 * 7. The JP source is about his company, not him. It mentions his name once. The company has already been determined to be not notable.
 * 8. The Architecture Art Designs article has no byline and mentions the subject's name once. The company has already been determined to be not notable.
 * 10. The Lianna Marketing page doesn't even mention the subject, and even if it did, it would be his own website. [Since removed.]
 * Overall, these sources are terrible and I could not find one that fit our RS requirements. The subject is clearly not notable and this article is only here for promo purposes. --Kbabej (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per 's source analysis above, I see very little notability if any. — &#123;{u&#124; Bsoyka }&#125;  talk 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kbabej. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails notability as per Kbabej's assessment.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.