Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brienne Ghafourifar


 * 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. Biblio worm  19:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Brienne Ghafourifar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A7 speedied by User:DGG. I've removed the tag. At the time it was tagged for speedy deletion, the first two references were articles on her in the San Jose Mercury News (with her sibling) and CNN (with other young female tech entrepreneurs). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I consider neither to have made a bona fide claim for significance, though I probably should have added G11. I certainly don't think they make a claim for notability, nor does anything that's been added. I've listed her company for deletion also, at Articles for deletion/Entefy, That's the other half of the promotional campaign.  DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then I suppose I should point out that the same editor, the same day, also created Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations, a documentary film produced by her father. It reads like an advert and I've tagged it as such. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * right. I normally do check for other contributions, and I seem to have skipped it this time.  DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is certainly interesting but perhaps simply nothing for an outstandingly better article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  06:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete She is not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia and the allied and associated pages (including her company, her father's page and her father's movie) are insignificant, advertisement and created by the same user. Arashtitan   talk  20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To address the concern of my adding three pages in the same day, I needed to get the ball rolling so that I could continue to update each and flesh them out.


 * Regarding Brienne, she’s clearly highlighted by both local and national media as a “world record holder” as well as an up-and-coming leader in women tech entrepreneurship. In learning about her story, I consider her progress and coverage to meet the notability threshold for a wiki article. I’ve recently made some updates to the page to better capture this--referencing forbes, fast company, cnn, etc.


 * Also, the company, Entefy Inc., is readily mentioned alongside Brienne, both in conjunction with her success as well as of the impressive work they’re doing as well, thus the notability should reasonably extend.


 * FYI, in my research, I discovered her father and his connection to a bona fide film, so I updated his page with reference to his daughter and re-created the film page quickly, which I noticed was deleted previously for no real reason, that I could tell. I've made updates to those pages as well to address the advert comments. Again, my own research and quick content packaging.Wheysted (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – Too soon. There are now a lot of sources after a refbomb, but most of them are interviews or superficial coverage in self-congratulatory Bay-area "start-up culture" blogs and borderline PR outfits. The rest are listing her as an example related to She Started It. Trying to assess the reliability of these sources is a great way to win at buzzword bingo, but there's very little indication of fact-checking or strong editorial oversight. One good examples is IT Business Edge (The website's banner says "IT Business Edge - an IT Business Edge site". How helpful). It's mainly an advertising outfit, not a reliable source. The "world record" she holds doesn't appear to be one of recognized significance. Has anyone verified this record? Who came in second? Who held the record before she did? Nobody seems to care outside of PR. The sources suggest that maybe She Started It is noteworthy, but I don't think that extends to Ghafourifar yet. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheysted (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC) 1. If the question is around WP:RELIABLE, then the key citations from credible journalistic sources such as NBC's Press:Here, CNN Money, Forbes, Fast Company, San Jose Mercury News, IT Business Edge, Santa Clara University, etc. meets the reliability criteria. I appreciate you singling out IT Business Edge and your own opinion about it being "an advertising outfit." Would you dismiss CNN by the virtue of it being owned by Time Warner, an advertising and sponsored content driven media conglomerate? 2. Wikipedia's fundamental principals WP:FIVEPILLARS, specifically WP:5P2 states "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view...Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." So far, in these discussions for this article and the others, I have come across several instances of subjective editor biases rather than facts such as the following: Let's move to keep the article and let me know if there are any other improvements I can make to the page.Wheysted (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on this comment, I did some additional research and uncovered the following:
 * "Too soon." Not sure how this connects to this article.
 * "refbomb." After hearing editor feedback earlier in this discussion, I took diligent time to add sources to address some of the concerns presented by fellow editors. Happy to correct the refbomb if there's a better format.
 * New sources being dismissed as "...but most of them are interviews or superficial coverage in self-congratulatory Bay-area 'start-up culture' blogs and borderline PR outfits." I find the dismissal opinionated and subjective.
 * "...buzzword bingo..." Was this an opinion or an editorial fact?
 * "...very little indication of fact-checking or strong editorial oversight." Any evidence to support this?
 * "One good examples is IT Business Edge (The website's banner says "IT Business Edge - an IT Business Edge site". How helpful)." Opinion/sarcasm as well as logical fallacy. Regardless of IT Business Edge, refer to point 1 above regarding the variety reliable sources in support of this article.
 * "The "world record" she holds doesn't appear to be one of recognized significance. Has anyone verified this record? Who came in second? Who held the record before she did? Nobody seems to care outside of PR." Outside of PR? What does Wikipedia consider CNN Money, Fast Company, Forbes, NBC's Press:Here, etc.? Further, what is the basis for the world record being insignificant?
 * "...but I don't think that extends to Ghafourifar yet." Clear opinion.


 * Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, so brief, highly promotional articles do not carry as much weight as more serious sources which treat the subject in greater depth. This point is emphasized by relevant notability guidelines.
 * When I said too soon, I meant exactly that. See WP:TOOSOON.
 * Superficial coverage is something that Wikipedia articles specifically should avoid when possible, per WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and many others besides. Interviews are usable for establishing content in an article, but are much, much less desirable for establishing notability.
 * The Forbes one is by a "contributor", which is a sign that it's a borderline WP:SPS. Forbes does still publish real journalism but now they also act as an increasingly indiscriminate blogging platform, similar to Huffington Post. Blogs are not usable as sources in articles about living people unless they are treated as WP:PRIMARY sources, in which case they are not usable for establishing notability. See WP:BLPSPS for more.
 * The CNN and Fast Company are both reliable sources, but they are brief articles about the movie She Started It, and as I said, the movie may be notable, but having been featured in a film of unestablished notability doesn't automatically transmit notability.
 * See the article about QuinStreet (IT Business Edge) to understand why I say it's not a reliable source, or try to find any page on their site that explains editorial policies. Regardless, interviews are not valued for establishing notability, because they are not independent of the subject. This is explained in WP:BIO. I was sarcastic because I don't believe the site is worthy of respect. The other interviews may be from more respectable outlets, but they are still interviews, mostly for local/niche-interest audiences.
 * Women at the Frontier, Women 2.0, VLAB, and MOGUL (website) do not appear to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required by WP:RS. There are a massive number of blogs run by incubators and start-ups writing about entrepreneurship. Some of these are usable, but most are not. I checked the sites to try and learn more about them, but I didn't search WP:RSN, so maybe the consensus of other editors is that they are usable. I don't think they are, because they are either publishing aggregator content, or are advocating for a specific goal or agenda. That may be laudable, but not here.
 * The world record is a claim to notability, but it is not a legitimate one for Wikipedia's purposes, again, per WP:BIO. Fortune 500 or Guinness aren't specifically keeping track of this record, and nobody else seems to be commenting on it in general, so it's not usable in the way a noteworthy award would be. If taken at face value this is arguably an impressive feat, but nobody is saying where this claim came from, or how it could possibly be verified, which suggests that it's a form of puffery.
 * If you don't agree, I can understand that. This is often a messy process. We are having this discussion so we can reach consensus around policy. The process involves distilling a large number of policies, guidelines, and vastly differing interpretations of those things into something actionable. Grayfell (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

debated for notability, legitimacy of world record, reliable sources Wheysted (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or userfy There are plenty of sources, so I think she should pass GNG: she's obviously been noticed! I found some hits on EBSCO, too:, . If everyone thinks it's TOOSOON, I think "userfying" without prejudice is the way to go, since has put in a lot of work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly not notable at this point in time. While several of the other delete !votes make cogent points, 's is the most in-depth, and I can add nothing to that.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - significant case of WP:TOOSOON. Likely to be notable in the future, but there's no point holding onto an article until then -- samtar whisper 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Definitely not notable at this point in time, like others have mentioned. There is a lack of in depth coverage.  Cheers, 17:25, 26 December 2015 (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.