Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim (2nd nomination)

Emad Rahim

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim
• Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim (2nd nomination)

Emad Rahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

It is recounted here how the subject of this article paid Wiki-PR $1,500 to create a page for him. When it was deleted at the previous AfD, and he complained, they told him: “You're in the queue for reuploading... It wasn't rejected. It was approved and went live... Your page was vandalized.” A shorter article was then posted last October and deleted per WP:CSD#G4 as a repost of deleted material.

Wiki-PR are the proprietors of the User:Morning277 sock-farm, and have been given a cease-and-desist letter by lawyers for the WMF - see Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia.

So now we have a new article written by an SPA and supported by another SPA. Evidently Wiki-PR are returning to the charge. In my view the article could be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G5: Creations by banned or blocked users, but I bring it here for other views on that and also on whether notability is now demonstrated.

The only new element in the article is that he has been appointed as a "Distinguished Entrepreneur-in-Residence". It is claimed on the talk page that that meets WP:PROF #5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". It does not, because it is not a chair. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The requirements of WP:PROF state that either a named chair or a "Distinguished Professor" position are required, not both. I believe Rahim's position as a "Distinguished Entrepreneur-in-Residence" is equivalent to a "Distinguished Professor". However, I agree with JohnCD's assessment of this article creation as the likely output of a banned PR firm. I recommend a sockpuppet investigation to ascertain whether these two SPAs can be added to the existing sock farm, and if so, all of their creations (if there are any others) can be deleted under WP:CSD#G5. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. This is neither a named chair nor a Distinguished Professorship. The word "Distinguished" is not enough. We'll see what others think. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, G5. Also, "Distinguished" here counts for nothing; his former job as dean is more significant, but arguably he was not dean at a "major academic institution" as wp:prof requires. Hairhorn (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable .About the WP:PROF standard: I think it depends on the specific meaning. If it is a permanent position I think it would probably qualify under WP:PROF. But I do not think the standard is met by "Distinguished" designations that apply only for a short period of time, and most "in Residence" position are of that nature. From the university's web site, this one certainly is. So it isn;t automatic in this case. Otherwise the deanship is the most relevant, and it is of a minor institution that should be taken into account, but is not intrinsically automatic proof of notability. The publication record is considerably short of what would be wanted. He might be notable as a businessman, but based on the material here or at the university site [1] there is no indication of it. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It is possible that this was submitted by the same banned user farm, but we have no proof of it. It is substantially different from the previous article--he might have learned enough from his experience to write it himself, or have it written by his staff, or the university PR staff. I think the PR staff is mthe most likely, it looks to me like university PR staff material. It does not look to me like most wiki-PR material. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• You may be right. It is a problem that Wiki-PR's modus operandi, many paid editors using throw-away accounts, means there is only ever circumstantial evidence, so if we require more before acting they can operate unchecked. Two SPAs at once is odd, either way. I was tempted to block, but instead raised this at WP:AN#Wiki-PR again, where you might like to comment. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Throwing this out there, paid editing notwithstanding, but if he fails WP:PROF, what about WP:AUTHOR?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I disagree that a visiting distinguished entrepreneur position satisfies WP:PROF. A visiting title like that does not necessarily make someone an academic high-flyer. It appears that he only got his doctorate in 2009. It appears that his scholarly work has only been cited 28 (!) times--that is really low [2]. On balance, he does not appear to be notable as an academic. More to the point, the re-creation of a paid, promotional article, and the involvement of two SPAs, makes it obvious that this is a non-disclosed paid article, in violation of the Terms of Use [3]. To me, that is the most important reason to delete, and to block these SPAs. I have no idea whether this is Morning277, that is besides the point. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, per DGG. —teb728 t c 04:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and salt doesn't meet WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. It is a fallacy to compare business school Entrepreneurs in Residence with research academics, where the latter are what WP:PROF should be about. Business schools take on EiRs as adjuncts, often with a view to mentoring and encouraging students in entrepreneurship programs and to doing some specialized teaching. These positions are not research positions and, to my knowledge, never come with tenure; indeed they are usually for just one or two years at most. In the subject's case, the mention of the years for the EiR implies the same. The "Distinguished" is sometimes thrown in to make the visitor feel good, and to provide a bit of separation from regular adjuncts, but does not recognize outstanding academic performance. Good schools (I am not saying here) bring in EiRs, typically at retirement age or as a late-career "sabbatical", based on their strong and inspiring career track record as business leaders and entrepreneurs. So, the track record as business leader and entrepreneur should be the basis for inclusion into WP of someone who happens to be an EiR; not the EiR position as such. A recent example of an EiR is described [here] and [here]; note that this person does not have a WP page, even.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)