Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Malek

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. Walton^One 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Malek

Ben Malek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No demonstrated notability by reliable independent sources as all the links are related to him or for promotion purposes as he is an author. A google search doesn't turn up any indepedent sources, mainly trivial listings selling his book or his own articles. This was a contested prod and the article was deleted previously under CSD for no assertion of notability. The author of the article also probably has a conflict of interest with the subject as per this note on my talk page: [1]. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I simply can't find anything. Anyway, COI doesn't matter, but there just doesn't seem to be anything for somebody who's been so talked about, supposedly, according to our article. I'm concerned also that the only returned result out of only 12 for "Ben Malek" and Domino is our article--maybe it's a fake article. KP Botany 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• So if you do the second search using his correct last name, does your concern go away? Malibailey

• Who is this article about, Ben Malek or Ben Malekzadeh? If it's about Ben Malek, I'll search for Ben Malek, and that's the article whose deletion we are discussing. Create an article on Ben Malekzadeh if that's who we're discussing, and I will look. KP Botany 04:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's the same person. He used to go by Malekzadeh and has started to go by Malek the last few years when I saw him speak I will note the article as such if it makes you happy --Malibailey 05:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's still delete. There's just nothing there about him. If he had all these book deals and stuff, I'd find something besides blogs about him. Heck, I'm mentioned on more prestigious blogs and in more prestigious newspapers than he is, and there is no article about me on Wikipedia. I'm generally an inclusionist, you wouldn't believe the people I've kept and the lengths I've gone to, but Malek needs more available sources about him for this article to be kept. If he's really as notable as you say he is, these sources will be forthcoming, and I suggest you go to the WP:MOS and prepare to write that article. But, there's nothing about him right now. Even those talking about him can't deliver more than sound bites. KP Botany 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - notability and coi —Travis^talk 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - New information presented requires me to change my opinion. —Travis^talk 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Do a search for "Ben Malekzadeh" and you will see a 1460 hits. How does this promote him in any way? The links are to the Library of Congress, which does not sell books. If you click on any link that is included, you will see. The 3 magazines mentioned are all print magazine that were formerly published by Penton Media, which is a very large publisher. One of the books was published by McGraw-Hill which is not a small publisher. Take a look at people listed under category computer specialist. Most of them just say the person works for Microsoft.. Is that Notable? This person was a columnist for a technical magazine for over 6 years, has authored 2 books, contributed to a dozen more books, and been known as an expert in his field. What does it take to be notable? People in his field recognize his name. Do another search and you will see, but this time use his pen name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malibailey (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 July 2007}}

• Keep I posted the article with "malekzadeh" in parenthesis. He is a legitimate author. 199.20.54.1 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

— 199.20.54.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Legitimate, yes. But notable? Besides, it still appears to violate WP:COI. —Travis^talk 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, he's real; I've heard of him and we may well know at least one person in common but even as a published author he's just another guy who wrote a how-to book or two. We're not a directory of published authors, only of notable ones. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, What does it take for someone to be considered notable? I would think someone who excels in their field of study or career, and who has made contributions to that field should be considered notable. I don't know who you know that knows him or not, but I am a fan of his writing, reading his books and columns for over 6 years has helped me and many of my collegues in their careers. He's not a blogger, he's not someone that has written things for websites, but someone that actually wrote books that were published by major publishers, spoke at conferences that regarded him as an expert, and even some of the articles he wrote were notable enough to be translated and re-published into Spanish, Italian and French. If you think it is that easy to get a book contract from companies like McGraw-Hill, I think you should all try and see how far you get. I disagree with the comment of "he's just another guy who wrote a how-to book or two. Even if that is all that he did, does he have to cure cancer to be considered notable? There are tons of people that have done less and you guys aren't going through nominating them for deletion... Malibailey

• Comment, All of you citing COI, would any of you care to say under what grounds it is COI? It is not financial, self-promotion, autobiography, etc... So state your caseMalibailey

• You stopped reading wp:coi too soon. The next topic is "Close relationships." The author, Khansajed claims that Malek was a mentor of his. I think that fits the definition of close relationship. —Travis^talk 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did see that, but I wouldn't consider what I said to be a COI. I fixed the article,I changed the links away from Amazon, and added my own 2 cents. So even if he did write it originally, I stepped in and added what I thought would take and COI away from it. Malibailey

• Comment. Just as a note, since this has come up a lot, COI is not a deletion criterion, but it is usually worth noting, especially in cases of disputed notability (in general, people tend to think those that have affected them personally are more significant than would otherwise be the case). The deletion nom is on the basis of notability and lack of reliable indepedent sources for that notability. COI is just a side note. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• After rereading the article and Cquan's comment, I am retracting my COI complaint. Thanks for the clarification. —Travis^talk 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

* Cquan... Thanks for being fair on the COI, but I still want to know your definition of notable, because I think he is. Have you done a search on "Ben Malekzadeh" ? Malibailey

• I did, as I said in the nomination. I have yet to see one from an independent reliable source that does not qualify as trivial. This includes biography pages from places that sell his books. Feel free to present sources here to, as making the claim of notability properly sourced will fix this whole situation. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did a thorough search, and as you have seen, it is very hard to find things any time someone writes a few books. There are too many people trying to capitalize by having links to the books, and therefore the searches get diluted. The only independent articles I found on him make him notable for charity work that he had done (Big Ben Foundation- 10 years ago) and when he worked for the Philadelphia Eagles from the archives at morningcall.com

However, I do see that notability does talk about name recognition, as he does have name recognition for people like me and my peers in his field of work, and he is also widely cited by his peers- per wiki criteria:

Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. - He fits into this category The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

Many of his peers have cited him in their blogs all over the world. They have taken pieces of his work and writing and cited it within their blogs or websites. As you can see, they are located throughout the world.

Hong Kong/Sydney

Italy

Switzerland

USA

USA

USA

Switzerland

Cited in a book written by one of his peers

Cited in a Lotus/IBM Forum

Japan

Russia

Russia

Israel

You can also look at some of the cached pages that are linked here:

zoom info

There is also abook review from secondary sources (outside of the ones on the sites that sell it)

collective body of work-independent book His Best of Ask Ben book is a collection of his writings for over 6 years that was compiled and re-published.

internationally significant libraries. Library of Congress? Is that an Internationally significant Library?

Anyway, I have spent way too much time on this already. Cquan- if you don't want to think someone is notable, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. There aren't enough people going through this page to give their comments- seems like the same few people. If you are not in this field of work, you would not recognize him, and as many books or articles that he may have written isn't going to convince you. There are not lots of articles out there about his work, other than the ones that point out his publications, which is why he is notable- although you disagree. As I mentioned earlier, it is not that easy to get multiple book deals, and I know he has made huge contributions to his field. Not sure if you know him and have a personal vendetta against him or what, but if all these citations above- all from independent sources from different countries that cite his work doesn't convince you, I don't think anything else will. --Malibailey 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, the point is, you don't have to convince me...you have to convince enough for a consensus, for which, at the moment, I would not be part of due to lack of convincing evidence. This guy sounds like he has limited notability within a certain technical community, but frankly this is all way too labored. The point is that Wikipedia is not supposed to help establish notability or recognition of people that aren't already notable or worthy of recognition. If it were otherwise, it would amount to advertising and promotion, no matter how you word it. I admire the effort, but to me it just demonstrates that this guy lacks the notability you're trying to establish. I mean, has he even won an award for anything? Or was his book a best seller? Those would easily establish notability. Oh yeah, and I hardly consider the Library of Congress a good way to establish notability since they try to get copies of EVERYTHING. Sorry, but it shouldn't be this difficult, which makes me think the article shouldn't be here. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know if he has won any awards, I did not find any references to any. I know at one point, his McGraw-Hill book was on the top 100 best seller list at Amazon, but I did not want to get back to promoting books, which he probably made money from- then you would cry promotion. I know I pre-ordered the book almost 1 year before it was published. I'm not trying to establish his notability- he already has that. I was trying to establish his notability to you, since your background is not in computers or Lotus Notes, and therefore you would not know him. Up until recently, many people didn't know who David Beckham was, and many Americans still don't know him, because they just don't follow or play soccer... doesn't make him any less notable since he is the most popular athlete in the world. I agree, Ben Malek is not a notable person to an average person- yes, you are an average person. But as I mentioned, to someone in his field, he is. Cquan, Lotus Notes has nothing to do with Biotechnology, or Chemical Engineering, and therefore I wouldn't expect you to know him or find him notable, as it is not an area of your interest.. But makes me wonder why you are so interested and involved in this article. You have nominated it twice for deletion, once speedy, while thousands of other articles are getting published. You should get involved in articles you know something about and keep your hands off of areas outside of your expertise. Looking at your contributions, you are really stuck on this one... You have been focused on tissue engineering, biotechnolgy, patent law, University of Rochester and Ben Malek? Doesn't that seem strange? --Malibailey 04:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for the advice (which I've heard repeatedly from others). Unfortunately, this is a general encyclopedia, not a Lotus Notes/Computer encyclopedia. IMHO, you should be trying to contribute articles with the general audience in mind. Yes, I certainly am an average reader in this subject, which is why I'm sceptical. Of course I will contribute more frequently and (hopefully) authoritatively in subjects I know a lot about, but that hardly means I should "keep my hands off" other subjects. This is a freely editable project and opinions, even non-expert/in the field ones are valid. If you think only experts should contribute to articles, then you've missed the point of Wikipedia. And obviously, I'm not the only one who is skeptical about this article...perhaps a little vocal, but not alone...since yes, I nominated for deletion (i.e. expressed a concern), but I didn't delete it...for the speedy, feel free to pester User:Riana about that. If the consensus here says it stays, then it stays...and will probably shrug off any potential future concerns because of it. That's the point of these community discussions. Now, I don't believe in just voicing an opinion with no reasoning behind it, so as soon as I see sources for notability that satisfy WP:NOTE, then I'll be all for keeping the article, but not before. Sorry. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment You are correct and sorry, I guess your input still means something, although if I don't find biotechnology that interesting (which I don't), I wouldn't start questioning everything in articles about it. The reason I pointed it out is that it seems you are really out to make sure this article goes away, no matter what evidence is presented. It's been going back and forth. I thought I already showed you tons of sources for notability that satisfy WP:BIO Read the guidelines under the creative professionals section which I cited above. It does state some things that would make the person notable, and even if the Library of Congress may not be a valid argument on my part, how about the other points I raised, including the citation from his peers in 8 different countries? If he was not notable, would people all over the world be reading his writings and copying parts of his articles to their website? And that is just what I was able to find by googling his name, which isn't the most complete research. It is all relative to his work.. Anyway, I don't think I am going to win you over. I think it is all part of good healthy discussion and if the consensus doesn't find it worthy, so be it, but I have found many more less worthy people listed that haven't done as much.. --Malibailey 05:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wow you guys have been up all night! So have we reached a consensus here? I still strongly feel that Ben Malek should stay, who are we to judge or who is notable or not? His wiki has been modified not to promote his book or endorse him in anyway. Let us just move onto another subject area. Khansajed 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to cquan This is directly from the consensus page guidelines:

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors must, in almost all situations, assume good faith and must always remain civil.

Stop being so stubborn. Consider other people's view points. Not sure if you have something against the subject or the original author as I see you have been involved in both of his contributions, but I don't think you are being reasonable. I already posted information about how his notability satisfies WP:BIO and maybe your silence since then means agreement or not?

Although I don't agree with User:Khansajed and some of the edits he had made, I did try to correct the situation by editing the article, I spent all this time ranting back and forth with you. User:TravisTX is an example of how to be a reasonable editor, as when he did see some supporting evidence (that COI wasn't ground for deletion), he assumed good faith.

There are some fields that get more press coverage than others. If he had a small role in a tv show, he would have a lot more notability according to you, because the entertainment industry gets more coverage. You even just reviewed Mona Scott and didn't think there was anything wrong with that. Who is she? Manager of a record company? Is this a directory of record company managers? Is she one of the top record company managers out there? Has she written books about record company management? Do a search for "mona scott" violator or "mona scott" records and you will get around 600-800 hits and most of them are from places that sell her records. Do the same for "Ben Malekzadeh" Lotus Notes and you get more than double that and you will see people quoting him and his work.--Malibailey 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I have to defend my decisions (especially in this case...if you thought she wasn't notable, you could have tagged for CSD just like anyone else). I looked briefly and saw plenty of evidence for notability on Mona Scott...but, why not? I just added a couple refs to the article in support of notability and I'll leave it to others who know more about her to expand the article. Now, back to this article...I think if all those sources you provided weren't blogs or forums, I would say fine and good, but blogs and forums aren't generally accepted as reliable sources per WP:V. I tried a citation search and other than the one you gave above, I can't find examples of him being cited outside a blog (one example is hardly "widely cited"). I think you may be right that I am being a little stubborn on this...I'm not seeing that clear and eyepopping demonstration of notability, but I guess there are lots of little things supporting it...so for now I think I'm sticking to Weak Delete due to limited niche notability without sufficient sources. It's unfortunate that some areas get less coverage, but that's just the state of the world. Still, it wouldn't be much to ask for notability's sake for one article to be written about him in some at least semi-mainstream computing magazine. Like I said, I'm obviously very vocal about this, but I'm hardly the only person available to form the consensus, so my stubborness aside, if the subject is truely notable, one little dissentor like me shouldn't hurt anything. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 16:51, 18 July 2007 (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.