Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim (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 and salt. Deor (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Emad Rahim
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is recounted here how the subject of this article paid Wiki-PR $1,500 to create a page for him. When it was deleted at the previous AfD, and he complained, they told him: “''You're in the queue for reuploading... It wasn't rejected. It was approved and went live... Your page was vandalized.''” A shorter article was then posted last October and deleted per WP:CSD as a repost of deleted material.

Wiki-PR are the proprietors of the User:Morning277 sock-farm, and have been given a cease-and-desist letter by lawyers for the WMF - see Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia.

So now we have a new article written by an SPA and supported by another SPA. Evidently Wiki-PR are returning to the charge. In my view the article could be speedily deleted under WP:CSD: Creations by banned or blocked users, but I bring it here for other views on that and also on whether notability is now demonstrated.

The only new element in the article is that he has been appointed as a "Distinguished Entrepreneur-in-Residence". It is claimed on the talk page that that meets WP:PROF #5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". It does not, because it is not a chair. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The requirements of WP:PROF state that either a named chair or a "Distinguished Professor" position are required, not both. I believe Rahim's position as a "Distinguished Entrepreneur-in-Residence" is equivalent to a "Distinguished Professor".  However, I agree with JohnCD's assessment of this article creation as the likely output of a banned PR firm. I recommend a sockpuppet investigation to ascertain whether these two SPAs can be added to the existing sock farm, and if so, all of their creations (if there are any others) can be deleted under WP:CSD.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is neither a named chair nor a Distinguished Professorship. The word "Distinguished" is not enough. We'll see what others think. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, G5. Also, "Distinguished" here counts for nothing; his former job as dean is more significant, but arguably he was not dean at a "major academic institution" as wp:prof requires. Hairhorn (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable .About the WP:PROF standard: I   think it depends on the specific meaning. If it is a permanent position I think it would probably qualify under WP:PROF. But I do not think the standard is met by   "Distinguished" designations that apply only for a short period of time, and most "in Residence" position are of that nature. From the university's web site, this one certainly is. So it isn;t automatic in this case. Otherwise the deanship is the most relevant, and it is of a minor institution that should be taken into account, but is not intrinsically automatic proof of notability. The publication record is considerably short of what would be wanted. He might be notable as a businessman, but based on the material here or at the university site  there is no indication of it.  DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It is  possible  that this was submitted by the same banned user farm, but we have no proof of it. It is substantially different from the previous article--he might have learned enough from his experience to write it himself, or have it written by his staff, or the university PR staff. I think the PR staff is mthe most likely, it looks to me like  university PR staff material. It does not look to me like most wiki-PR material.  DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right. It is a problem that Wiki-PR's modus operandi, many paid editors using throw-away accounts, means there is only ever circumstantial evidence, so if we require more before acting they can operate unchecked. Two SPAs at once is odd, either way. I was tempted to block, but instead raised this at WP:AN, where you might like to comment. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Throwing this out there, paid editing notwithstanding, but if he fails WP:PROF, what about WP:AUTHOR?   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 16:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree that a visiting distinguished entrepreneur position satisfies WP:PROF.  A visiting title like that does not necessarily make someone an academic high-flyer.  It appears that he only got his doctorate in 2009.  It appears that his scholarly work has only been cited 28 (!) times--that is really low .  On balance, he does not appear to be notable as an academic.  More to the point, the re-creation of a paid, promotional article, and the involvement of two SPAs, makes it obvious that this is a non-disclosed paid article, in violation of the Terms of Use .  To me, that is the most important reason to delete, and to block these SPAs.  I have no idea whether this is Morning277, that is besides the point.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, per DGG. —teb728 t c 04:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt doesn't meet WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is a fallacy to compare business school Entrepreneurs in Residence with research academics, where the latter are what WP:PROF should be about. Business schools take on EiRs as adjuncts, often with a view to mentoring and encouraging students in entrepreneurship programs and to doing some specialized teaching. These positions are not research positions and, to my knowledge, never come with tenure; indeed they are usually for just one or two years at most. In the subject's case, the mention of the years for the EiR implies the same. The "Distinguished" is sometimes thrown in to make the visitor feel good, and to provide a bit of separation from regular adjuncts, but does not recognize outstanding academic performance. Selective universities (I am not saying here) bring in EiRs, typically at retirement age or as a late-career "sabbatical", based on their strong and inspiring career track record as business leaders and entrepreneurs. So, the track record as business leader and entrepreneur should be the basis for inclusion into WP of someone who happens to be an EiR; not the EiR position as such. A recent example of an EiR is described [here] and [here]; note that this person does not have a WP page, even.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does fail WP:ACADEMIC, incidentally with the aggravating circumstance that his [own GS page] takes credit for work he did not author. But more importantly, per my preceding comment, he does not pass WP:BIO based on his life accomplishments and non-academic career either. Salt seems to be justified too, as this is an extreme case of WP:TOOSOON at best, and the editor and re-creation history implies that this will otherwise be a recurring problem.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete due to violation of Terms of Use (undeclared paid article) . Suggest blocking the SPAs for the same reason--this is a major violation of Terms of Use.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment We have no evidence that this current creation is a paid placement. Only that the subject has previously paid for placement (but that article was previously deleted). Doesn't bolster the notability of the subject any, but let's delete it on grounds we can establish.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply I disagree in strongest possible terms that there is "no" evidence that this is an undeclared paid (or COI) article. There is plenty of evidence--see above comments by myself and others.  Whether there is 100% certainty is another matter, but that is not the standard of evidence on WP.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems a clear case of WP:MEAT- " A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. "- throw away single purpose accounts used to reconstitute actions indistinguishable from those of blocked and banned users. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd start by deleting the list of papers (co-) written by him. Well, he's "Distinguished Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Spears School of Business". But SSB's "Current Chairs & Professorships" (which doesn't list him) shows that they go in for prenominal modifiers in a big way ("Tom and Edna Mae Carson Centennial Professorship", etc). Perhaps "Entrepreneur-in-Residence" seemed a bit bare in comparison; lacking the name of any endowment or similar, they attached the somewhat vacuous "Distinguished". I read the WP article to find how he's distinguished himself in entrepreneurship and come up empty handed. By contrast, Benjamin Wey (the claims for whose notability have been similarly energetic) does seem to have headed a company that "made" (derived) a lot of money. I'm inclined to conclude "delete and salt", but first I'll view some more arguments here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There haven't been any additional arguments, but I've reread those above. Delete as not particularly notable. And salt because of the history of re-creation. If his claims to notability increase, then a would-be article creator (disinterested or otherwise) can apply through the regular channels for there to be an article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. I agree with the others.  There's no smoking gun, but this is very likely the work of a undisclosed paid editor.  When an editor in good standing is convinced of the subject's notability, a discussion can take place as to whether the article should be recreated.  Until then, it's best to err on the side of caution.  Articles on non-notable topics that are written by editors with an undisclosed COI do more to damage the credibility of the encyclopedia than trivial vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (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.