Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Zafari (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 no consensus. Over multiple relists, there appears to be enduring good-faith disagreement as to exactly whether this article passes the bar of the general notability guideline. It's clearly something of an edge case, with a small number of sources that seem to just about fit the letter of the guideline. In the absence of any history of controversial editing or questionable claims being included to concern us regarding WP:BLP policy, i'm comfortable with defaulting to keep in the absence of a consensus. ~ mazca  talk 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reza Zafari
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Only name mentains, no indepth coverage. Also while during wp:before I realised he has an inside connection with Barron. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The previous deletion nomination was withdrawn for good reason. "Fail of WP:GNG" is a curious rationale, given the sources present in the article at the time of nomination. They are:
 * The Student Life is reliable per WP:RSSM but a little borderline for notability purposes, but the others certainly count. I'd like to know what connection you see, but Barron's was founded as a sister publication to The Wall Street Journal, so I'm skeptical there would be an issue with using that unless they had a disclaimer on the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Profile links are not contribution much, barron is not much reliable and he has connects, Rest The Student Life is notable source but this is not indepth about Reza Zafari, hardly 2-3 lines.Sonofstar (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's difficult to fully understand what you are saying; please communicate clearly. You seem to have ignored my main question: what is this "inside connection" to Barron's that you assert? I did a search and was unable to find anything apart from its coverage of him. As for its reliability, the two references I was able to find on RSN were both instances in which Barron's was being used as a clearly reliable foil to another more questionable source: Barron's (newspaper) is a very reputable US newspaper published in tabloid format here and while Rolling Stone is a useful source, it does not carry the same weight as Barrons on the topic here. My case for notability does not rely on The Student Life to meet the two-source GNG minimum, as the other profiles are much more in-depth; I included it mainly since it helps fill in details on his early life. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Student Life is reliable per WP:RSSM but a little borderline for notability purposes, but the others certainly count. I'd like to know what connection you see, but Barron's was founded as a sister publication to The Wall Street Journal, so I'm skeptical there would be an issue with using that unless they had a disclaimer on the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Profile links are not contribution much, barron is not much reliable and he has connects, Rest The Student Life is notable source but this is not indepth about Reza Zafari, hardly 2-3 lines.Sonofstar (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's difficult to fully understand what you are saying; please communicate clearly. You seem to have ignored my main question: what is this "inside connection" to Barron's that you assert? I did a search and was unable to find anything apart from its coverage of him. As for its reliability, the two references I was able to find on RSN were both instances in which Barron's was being used as a clearly reliable foil to another more questionable source: Barron's (newspaper) is a very reputable US newspaper published in tabloid format here and while Rolling Stone is a useful source, it does not carry the same weight as Barrons on the topic here. My case for notability does not rely on The Student Life to meet the two-source GNG minimum, as the other profiles are much more in-depth; I included it mainly since it helps fill in details on his early life. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - appears to meet WP:GNG... can't find any convergence with Barron's.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 06:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I failed to find any significant coverage aside from him being in Barron's or writing for Barron's. To me, being repeatedly covered in the same publication or writing for the publication - or getting a minor passing mention - in the same publication does not qualify under WP:GNG. Present me sourcing from multiple reliable secondary sources - and two is not enough - and I'm all ears. Missvain (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see the first source in my !vote, which is to the Los Angeles Business Journal, which is not Barron's and which was judged generally reliable the last time it came up at RSN that I could find. Regarding writing for Barron's, I have not found any instance of that; please provide a link if you have so that we can review. Regarding your last sentence, GNG requires two or more qualifying sources, and that's what I have firmly established here; you are free to IAR ignore that standard or to seek out additional sources if you wish. If we're going the IAR route, the fact that Barron's has covered him multiple times rather than just once probably counts for something. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are right, he hasn't written for Barron's he just has a profile on it (like a Bloomberg Business profile). Frankly, I'm just not convinced he is independently notable to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Here is my examination of the sourcing I have found:


 * 1) - Counts towards GNG
 * 2) - This is about the business he co-owns. It's not about him specifically. Could count towards WP:BASIC.
 * Everything else is a passing mention or promotional-type profiles, including your LA Business Journal profile. I am not counting a college newspaper announcement/article about board members, which again, mentions the subject in passing, as counting towards a general notability. I stand by my vote. Delete. The subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you're not persuaded that the Los Angeles Business Journal is SIGCOV? It's a full reported article about him that gives biographical details like his age/education/previous positions and quotes him five times. The fact it covers his partner as well doesn't change that—GNG specifies that coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material. And if you're saying it doesn't seem reliable, that goes against the RSN discussion, but you're not bound by it so that's something you can do. But there's no shame in changing your !vote after reviewing information you previously missed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am not convinced. Run of the mill business profiles are not going to convince me that the subject meets WP:GNG. Perhaps other editors will feel otherwise and !vote accordingly. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Keep - I agree with Sdkb, it makes better sense to keep this article as it has references from reliable newspapers and media. I would like to add another one from Barrons 2019 Top Advisor Rankings by State Mommmyy (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the exact issue, source only from Barrons. Editors are not able to find other journals. Personal Profile link like https://www.barrons.com/advisor/directory/reza-zafari this signals only one thing, internal connection. Please share sources from multiple RS. Sonofstar (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is befuddling that you continue to insist that I have provided no sources apart from Barron's when I did precisely that above. If you (or MrsSnoozyTurtle below) feel that the Los Angeles Business Journal profile (which, again, gives biographical details like his age/education/previous positions and quotes him five times) somehow doesn't qualify as SIGCOV, make an argument as to why. Otherwise, the closer is unlikely to give your !votes much or any weight.
 * You are mistaken that him appearing in the Barron's directory implies any sort of "internal connection". As Missvain already noted above, it is akin to a Bloomberg Business profile; Barron's has them for everyone who appears in their rankings as Zafari does. If that changes your perspective, you are free to change your !vote. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage aside from Barrons. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified by Sdkb, which certainly seem to meet GNG to me.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only substantive content in the article is his job (private wealth advisor and managing director), where he has lived and now lives, and the college where he studied. There is nothing at all in the article regarding why Zafari stands out more than a person with a reasonably high-ranking job. It may well be that sources such as Barrons cover Zafari, but secondary sourcing provides a presumption of notability. For there to be real notabiity, in the way that "notability" is used in everyday language, there needs to be some assertion in the article as to why he is significant. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have by no means mined the sources for all they have to offer; I haven't even written the "career" section of the page yet. But an article being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, and if there were nothing notable about Zafari he wouldn't be receiving GNG-qualifying coverage. It's not our role to second guess which topics that journalists write about are actually important or not. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:42, 10 June 2021 (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.