Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ghappour

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. Promotionalism is rarely a reason to delete unless it rises to the level of WP:CSD#G11; this article, however, does so. As such the arguments to delete are quite persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ghappour

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (April 2022) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2022) This article cannot be verified due to paywall references This article is not notable--doesn't contribute significantly to any field, profession, or social cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justfactsnofiction (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, People, and United Kingdom. Storchy (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flowery language right off the bat. Agree with nom, non-notable. Likely an SEO article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The article is a promotional almost to the point of WP:TNT, but I think the subject is notable or very close to notable. He is mentioned in numerous top tier publications, albeit not in depth, and one of his academic papers published in Stanford Law Review has over 100 citations. There are so many media mentions that I am not able to go through them all right now, but he is popping up in NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, Wired, Ars Technica, etc. Most appear to be just quotes where he was offering a comment of some kind, so maybe not enough to count toward WP:GNG, but it could very well go toward WP:NACADEMIC "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Some definitions of a "highly cited" paper indicate that a paper that is in the top 1% of papers published in that field in that year is considered highly cited. I can't find that data, but I know that the most highly cited law papers in a given year have a few hundred citations on average, which could place his paper near the top 1%. His legal career, academic career, and media appearances would not be sufficient to prove notability on their own, but combined I think they could bring him close. The reason that he has gotten so much press is because his research areas are very hot topics over the last few years, and if the article were restructured to cover those topics rather than reading like a vanity piece, it could actually be a good encyclopedic article about a relatively prominent professor and lawyer with a unique body of work that has rightfully gotten him a lot of media attention. Additionally, it also appears that earlier in his career he represented 40 Guantanamo Bay prisoners, giving him quite an interesting and prominent profile overall. Chagropango (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, however I'd like to push back on your last point: He was a staff attorney at the time of his "representation" of Guantanamo inmates. Staff attorneys have no chance of making partner, it is ranked below an associate attorney position, and most clients would never know the staff attorney is working on their case. Staff attorneys could be considered "back office" workers, unlike the attorney who meets with clients, goes to court, and such. I think given the lack of clarity on the nature of his work, it is not fit for encyclopedia publication without more information about what role he played. Also, given the conflict of interest this article currently has, it is likely an over-exaggeration aimed at increasing clout. (https://beincrypto.com/nym-taps-renowned-attorney-ahmed-ghappour-as-general-counsel/) [Source reliability unknown]

Further, the self promotion done by the subject is astounding, and leads to a lot of media coverage. Accordingly, this gives the subject an outsized presence online compared to actual experience or accomplishments. The fact is, the subject knows the internet, and how to leverage that knowledge to increase his online presence. Because of this, and the subjects history of self promotion on WP, an article about the subject may always be a target for puff pieces. I think this should be considered going forward, thanks for the conversation everybody. Justfactsnofiction (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.