Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooshang Heshmat


 * 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   keep. NW ( Talk ) 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hooshang Heshmat

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Resume-ish article doesn't establish notability.  Ja Ga  talk 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup the style. This source says he is a fellow of ASME, satisfying criterion 3 of WP:ACADEMIC.  Jujutacular  T · C 03:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jujutacular Hobit (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as this appears to be a clear breach of WP:BLP. None of the extraordinary claims being made about this individual are support by reliable secondary sources, and in this case they are highly promotional claims. There seems to be clear conflict of interest/original research issues related to this and the related corporate articles, as they are written by an editor with extensive inside information but the source of this information is not disclosed. Better to delete now and restate later, but only if evidence of notability is provided by independent sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * @Gavin Collins above: The issues you describe with the article are problems, but can be resolved through editing. I agree the article is unverified and promotional, but this can easily be resolved, and deletion is not required. Notability is established through satisfaction of WP:ACADEMIC.  Jujutacular  T · C 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If the content is unsourced, WP:ACADEMIC cannot be used as excuse for self-promotion. This article needs more than just editing; there needs to be verifiable evidence of notability in the form of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Extraordinary claims to notability such as he "has been responsible for major advances in this field" need to be well sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- WP:ACADEMIC applies to people in academia, which Dr. Heshmat is not. I'm not sure that the WP:BLP strictures necessarily apply here, though -- although the material is currently unsourced, it's a stretch to call it contentious. Calling the article self-promotion is questionable - is there any evidence that the subject himself wrote this article? The real question is, can notability be demonstrated? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This from the ASME site might help. I'd also be curious how many Fellows of the ASME there are. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete merge content with his company.Martinlc (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect -- Merging the content with his company seems to make sense to me, too. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, why are we even discussing this? No RS notability. The company just about passes notability, as it appears to have won some awards, but even that is borderline. No refs in either article. Physchim62 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick look at Google news and books shows that he is fairly well known in his field. Article should cite sources of course. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a borderline G11 speedy - it's about as close to a resume, press release or puff piece that you can get. ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I've rewritten the article to remove all the spammy bits. I believe notability is quite clearly shown as a verifiable fellow of ASME and STLE.  Jujutacular  T · C 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Improvements to article provide sufficient evidence of notability, particularly the award given by a highly reputable/notable professional organization. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reading the ASME description of what it takes to become a fellow, I'm not convinced that it's selective enough by itself to force a keep here. It seems one can become a fellow merely by holding a middle management position in engineering (ASME criterion #5) and being active for ten years. But the Hersey award seems much more exclusive, and is enough for me to feel this should be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a member of a trade or professional organisation (even for 10 years) or winning an award is not evidence of notability on its own. If professional membership qualifications or awards are not backed up by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then its not prima facie evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * keep per David Eppstein. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2009 (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.