Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Izad: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:17, 18 November 2017

Reza Izad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out -- two details I'd like to point: (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)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :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 [[WP:BASIC|NBIO's basic requirements]] clearly address the concern: "{{tq|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". <small>(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.)</small> <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim! (paid)|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!&nbsp;(PAID)</span>]]</span> 23:04, 18 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. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;[[User:Velella|Velella]]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
+::Thanks for pointing this out -- two details I'd like to point: (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. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim! (paid)|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!&nbsp;(PAID)</span>]]</span> 23:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)