Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setrag Khoshafian


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Setrag Khoshafian

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be WP:SPIP as primary editor is a WP:SPA, promotes his company Pegasystems, does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. DanielPenfield (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —DanielPenfield (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep GS cites 481, 253, 266, 183, 151 etc. h index = 16. Appears to pass WP:Prof #1 although in a highly cited area. The nominator could have found this out himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment Here's the problem: The "article" is clearly an effort in self-promotion either by Khoshafian himself or, more likely, by his buddy, Kamran Parsaye (Alliswellthen is the WP:Single-purpose account that edited both articles plus an article about a third buddy, Mark Chignell), so clearly it can't stand as it is.  So, the question becomes "How could one re-write the article so that it ain't free advertising for Setrag Khoshafian or his current business, Pegasystems?"
 * I'm not even sure what the WP:lead should say. Perhaps something like "Setrag Khoshafian is a computer scientist who wrote some highly-cited papers on something related to object-oriented databases between the mid-'80s and mid-'90s, but now he's employed by an non-notable offshoring business that sells some IT products on the side"?
 * Finally, per Prof note #7, "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I appreciate the force of the above comment. Although the article is clearly self-promotional, the 'citations' turn out to be on the good side of borderline. The article could be rewritten as suggested. Phrases like "Dr. Khoshafian is a recognized BPM pioneer and expert" are unsourced and should be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment Rewritten as who suggested?  And what should the WP:lead say?  And wouldn't that constitute the "fundamental rewrite" half of WP:CSD G#11 (the other half being "unambiguous [...] promotion")? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete self promotional article (spam) does not appear to be particularly notable.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Nobility is rather marginal and the article is unreferenced. He is not even among the current management of that company. Most of this article is unverifiable. The article is also quite promotional of his latest book, which (by far) is not his most cited one. . Can anyone find sources to write a verifiable and NPOV bio? Pcap ping  09:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ths SOA focus in his bio seems wrong. Khoshafian did publish a few object-oriented databeses books, and they have respectable citation counts around or over 100 for each book. His most cited papers are also in this area. But in the absence of a home page or CV, it's going to be exceedingly hard to write a bio without a lot of WP:OR. Pcap ping  09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per JBsupreme --BaronLarf 14:54, 17 February 2010 (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.