Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Meshkin (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Brian Meshkin
AfDs for this article:


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

Procedural nomination. Talk:Brian Meshkin has been nominated for deletion with the following statement, which is clearly meant to request that the article be deleted:

Mr. Meshkin’s page should be deleted because his page is inaccurate as all charges against him have been dismissed “in the interests of justice.”  As such, the statement that Mr. Meshkin is “a federally indicted entrepreneur” is completely false. To leave Mr. Meshkin’s page up despite the court’s dismissal undermines the credibility of the important work contributors provide to Wikipedia by implicitly endorsing the publication of Mr. Meshkin’s page.

Moreover, Mr. Meshkin’s page should be deleted because his page violates Wikipedia’s One Event and Neutrality Policies. See WP:BLP1E and WP:NPOV. For instance, rather than include categories of Mr. Meshkin typically found in other BLPs, such as “Early Life,” “Personal Life,” “Honors and Awards,” “Influences,” etc., his page almost entirely focuses on one event, namely, the indictment and lawsuit that has since been dismissed. This depiction of Mr. Meshkin is entirely lopsided and ignores the other work he’s done as an executive, elected official, non-profit leader, or father. Thus as it stands, this makes Mr. Meshkin’s Wikipedia page only focused on one event, making his page inherently non-neutral.

Lastly, and for similar reasons as stated above, Mr. Meshkin’s page should be deleted because he does not meet the notability criteria. Wikipedia’s Notability Policy provides that a person is “presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”  Further, if a person is notable for only one event, Wikipedia generally recommends that an article address the event--not the person. This is particularly true where, as here, the individual plays a major role in a minor event. In such cases, “it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. . . the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.” (emphasis added). As mentioned, nearly half of the sources cited through Mr. Meshkin’s page relates to now-dismissed lawsuit. Therefore, his page should be deleted because the lawsuit was a minor event, negating a standalone Wikipedia page for Mr. Meshkin. Disclaimer: Mr. Meshkin, a non-notable, living, private citizen, has not been able to remove his page independently. As a result, K&L Gates represents Mr. Meshkin and receives compensation for representing him. KLG-DCPR (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Biology,  and California.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm ignoring the of legal text above. I find confirmation he was a businessman, but I don't see anything for GNG. He was a CEO for a few biotech companies and did stuff... Nothing really for sourcing beyond confirmation that he worked for xyz comapny. Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes I'm aware I gave this a !weak keep decision last time. I've looked at the sourcing again, it's not really enough for GNG. It mostly mentions his legal issues. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, it doesn't seem like there is 'legal text above'. The deletion rationale is extensively referenced to wikipedia policy (we may agree or disagree with the nomination on the merits, but they did their homework). The only thing that really comes across as what I think you're talking about is the final sentence which just notes they are an attorney retained by the subject and being compensated for this. That's not even close to a legal threat and looks much more like the account making the WP:PAID declaration as required. All in all I commend the nominating account, someone paid attention to policy and wants to do this right. Whether or not they're accurate in their opinion on the article is something we have to decide here, but I can only hope for a day all people coming to wikipedia to right a regular-sized wrong were this competent. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally avoid long discussions of Wikipedia policy here; AfD is about article sourcing first. No valuable sources = no article. The rest is gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. This legal firm is 10/10. I like them, they follow the rules, explain why, explain they are a paid editor doing a service and parcitpate in the community. If this was the worst legal style issues were they would be pleasant. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The fact that it's written in the form of a petition might be off-putting for some – and that's not necessarily unreasonable – but there's no threats and they've clearly done their research. XAM2175  (T) 13:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel like statements about the case being dismissed can just be expanded upon, if that's the issue. Anyways, I did a search for sources specifically from before any of the lawsuits happened. I found some interesting coverage from early in his life. He was apparently rather involved in his local political and school community.
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver  seren C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak delete and possibly merge to articles on the company. In terms of notability the subject is an edge case. I don't really feel local stories about a school board candidate really clear notability on their own. The criminal charges probably do, but in that case we're at BLP1E like the nomination points out and especially weak because others at the company were charged. With a borderline case and clear indication it causes distress to a BLP subject I do think we can toss the bio article and mention the legal background at appropriate articles. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E and BLPREQUESTSDELETE. There isn't much to go on for an independent article.  I think we are better off without it. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. This is oddly the third time in 3 weeks this sort of stuff has come up Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - No clear evidence of sufficient notability to warrant an independent Wikipedia article JRed176 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SIGCOV. Besides being one big BLP violation, people who finance or even manage companies are not automatically notable, and the sourcing is terrible (LinkedIn, and whole sentences not sourced at all). Bearian (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per a broad interpretation of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; we haven't heard from the subject himself. Notability is borderline. I very much appreciate 's effort, which demonstrates the impact of paywalls and of the lack of online archives for older newspaper content now that Google has slashed most of the content out of its newspaper archive and Highbeam has been taken away, and if there were anyone here making a keep argument, I'd have filled out the biography using those sources and anything else I could find, and severely cut back the WP:UNDUE material on legal accusations and processes, so that there was a better basis for reevaluating. But there isn't, and a case has been made by that Meshkin himself would prefer deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see 's points about the subject having some level of previous public standing, and the suggestions that notability could potentially be established, but in my mind the balance of coverage at the present time places the article within the scope of WP:BLP1E and I'm prepared to accept that the nomination by counsel is within the spirit of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. XAM2175  (T) 13:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, with the event itself not being a notable event, and there being nothing to merge to. If we isolate the event content, the real biography content and available sourcing don't satisfy WP:NBASIC either. —Alalch E. 09:28, 16 January 2023 (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.