Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Izad


 * 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. SNOW  DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Reza Izad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is a lack of independent in-depth coverage of Izad himself to establish notability. Izad is mentioned in routine coverage and has been interviewed as a company exec about the company he works for. The article was paid for by Studio71. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Thanks JJMC89 for giving this article a chance to be discussed! I personally think the article meets NBIO's basic requirements, with multiple journalistic articles offering coverage of Reza Izad's CEO role within Studio71 (formerly known as CDS) bringing "a revolution of MCN networks".

In addition to what is already in the article:In addition to what is already in the article:
 * YouTube creators looking elsewhere for money
 * Cannes 2015: Navigating YouTube and beyond: Reza Izad, CEO and co-founder of Collective Digital Studios, on the future of collaboration between brands and content creators.
 * These 4 Multichannel Networks Plan to Capitalize on the Cord-Cutting Generation
 * CDS CEO Reza Izad on Going Long-Form on the Web
 * ProSiebenSat.1 Group-backed multichannel network Studio71 has named a new management team to take over from founders Sebastian Weil and Ronald Horstman, with US chief Reza Izad to become global CEO.
 * YouTube wants to be TV, but it’s not the same - Studio71 CEO Reza Izad explains the differences between YouTube and traditional TV on Recode Media. + Full transcript: YouTube star manager Reza Izad of Studio 71 on Recode Media
 * From the Big Chair: Reza Izad + Cornering CDS’s Reza Izad at CES
 * In response to JJJMC89's argument that "Izad has received coverage related to his notable company but not in-depth about himself outside of the many detailed interviews", I think NBIO's basic requirements clearly address the concern: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."; lengthy interviews and articles discussing the industry-changing impacts of Izad's business decisions cannot possibly be considered "trivial". (Disclosure, I was asked by a Studio71 contractor to try to cleanup the article, but I would not compromise my integrity and defend any article which I do not believe honestly meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies.) Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID)  23:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * After further researching the topic, I think that while there is definitely some level of notability, coverage in a standalone article might not warranted for the moment. I think a redirect to Studio71 is the best solution for now. Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID)  02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Concern - I have grave concerns about a properly declared paid editor defending an article at AfD. This is a very strong COI and I would strongly urge the closing admin to disregard the keep argument above.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out -- two details I'd like to mention: (1) since the situation is fully disclosed I think the closer and any future commenter is able to make up their own mind about the strength of my arguments regardless of who is presenting them, and (2) I hope I can reassure anyone involved in this AfD that I would not accept payment to say things or present arguments I do not truly believe in. Everything I've said here, I would have said just the same if I was commenting from my volunteer admin account. I hold Wikipedia's policies in the highest possible regard and would never dream of bullshitting the community for money. Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID)  23:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note above about being paid to clean up the article and this one. To fully clarify, are you are being paid, or do you expect to be paid, for these edits, in this AfD? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not specifically for this AfD, but the original request was "what can you do to get these maintenance tags off the article?" -- my solution was (1) get the original UPE creator to disclose correctly and (2) send the articles back to AfC to be reviewed, and if found acceptable, approved to mainspace without tags. I suppose my participation in this AfD can be considered part of the "article maintenance tag cleanup" effort, since they will either be kept at AfD (thus tags off) or not (in which case I suppose the titles will make acceptable redirects to Studio71). Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID)  19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so that is a "yes". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because - and only because - you have mentioned here that you put the article through AfC, I will note here the following. You have disclosed that this company is a client of Mister Wiki, who is in turn paying you (dislosure). The editor who accepted this, specifically citing the AfC process, also does paid editing through Mister Wiki, per their disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. Notability doesn't matter, its a promotional fluff piece that serves no purpose other than to promote the subject. No need to keep the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2017 (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.