Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadir Gohari


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nadir Gohari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recent PhD, fails WP:PROF. CEO of small consulting company. Sources in article are mainly self publications and organizations he is affiliated with. BEFORE doesn't show much more. Doesn't seem close to passing GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - The page is thin about accomplishments. Yes, Gohari wrote six articles but what was the impact? The article was virtually built by one editor,, and I'd like to know if WP:COI comes into play. Lyonex also created the article about Global Risk Intelligence, Gohari's company; that article was speedily deleted.-- Georgia Army Vet  Contribs  Talk  22:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, plausibly even an A7 speedy deletion. The article presents neither any accomplishment that could plausibly be a claim of significance nor any in-depth reliably-published independent sourcing about the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Bibliography is mostly self-published works. I'm more notable than this.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability, either in the article itself or in my own search.  And the text of the article offers little more than what already appears on the subject's own website.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2018 (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.