From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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; consensus is clear. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Al Salehi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Vanispamcruftisement for non-notable politican per WP:POLITICIAN. I've removed the worst of the promotional language about him "sharing his vision with the voters", but he's only ever been elected to minor offices. The rest of the article is a load of unreferenced claims that he's a "research analyst and an expert of Iran's government" (he appeared on Fox News once to talk about Iran), a company chairman, a medical doctor, and an inventor of technologies used by Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, and the University of Phoenix. The names in the references vary, oddly: the article and some of the references one reference says his name is Alan Salehi; the patents are for ‎Ali Abdolsalehi, and the doctor's office is for Ali Salehi: unclear what his real name is, and whether these are all really the same person. His one claim to fame seems to be the OC Register article about him forcing an election for the Orange County community college district. No significant coverage about him online from WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 14:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 14:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 14:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Thank you for revising the article. It has helped a lot with clean-up. Alan has appeared on Fox News more than once (really? does every appearance need to be cited?). So what he has only been elected to "minor" offices. "Minor" is defined however you want to define it. The claims are not all unreferenced. It is difficult to find references for everything Alan has done in his career. Not everything is public. This forced election is a big deal (notable itself). There is a conspiracy going on at the North Orange County Community College District and everyone is against Salehi for forcing this election, but the people in the college district appreciate Salehi's ambition to make things right at the college district. Al is short for Ali; Salehi is short for Abdolsalehi. He has changed his name on his voter registration cards over the years. You can see that starting from election records back when he ran for Laguna Beach School Board under the name Ali Abdolsalehi, [1] Buena Park Library District under Al Salehi, and most recently the NOCCCD race under Alan "Al" Salehi. This is public information. You can check various sources online such as smartvoter.org and ocvote.com. In short, Al Salehi's full name is Ali Abdolsalehi, but for the current college district race, he is running as Alan Salehi. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 14:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Alan Salehi's full name".
  • Being the first Persian-American to be at a statewide office indicates zero notability? Calling for a college district special election due to proven conspiracies indicates zero notability? I think not. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 00:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Firstly, that statement is a fact that I personally did research on; there is no reference for that claim because it is simply true. Secondly, as I have said countless times before, the Buena Park Library District is part of California's Special Districts, which is a form of government that is statewide. Salehi is notable, period. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 10:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, on Wikipedia original research is unacceptable as a source, particularly in biographies of living persons. Also please note that saying something countless times does not make it any more true: please supply a reference to WP:VERIFY the claim. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 10:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The "statewide office" criterion refers to the jurisdictional area of the body itself, not to the prevalence of its class of thing. For the Buena Park Library District to constitute a statewide office, the Buena Park Library District would have to be a statewide body in its own right, not merely a local division of a statewide structure of local divisions. California has a statewide system of city councils, too, but that doesn't make every individual city councillor in California a statewide officeholder — the city council itself would have to be a statewide body, not merely one exemplar of a statewide system. Bearcat ( talk) 20:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are specific notability requirements, in order to make this kind of decision as objective as possible. WP:POLITICIAN defines what kind of office confers notability: "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". A special district board in California is, at most, a branch of a statewide office, it is not a statewide office itself (by definition, since it's local.) And calling for a local election is also not a claim to notability unless there's been significant coverage of the fact in multiple independent sources. There is no such coverage of him, which also means that the general notalility criteria are not met. -- bonadea contributions talk 16:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Serving on a local public library board is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — but this article makes no other credible claim of notability for anything else ("first person of X ethnicity ever to hold an otherwise non-notable office" does not confer a notability freebie on a person who hasn't garnered nationalized coverage for that fact, per WP:POLOUTCOMES). The sourcing is parked almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources, and simple namechecks of his existence in articles which are in no way substantively about him. Furthermore, this is essentially a recreation of an article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Salehi — while this version is written and sourced differently enough that it would be a tossup whether it qualified for G4 or not, the basic claim of notability hasn't improved and neither has the overall quality of the sourcing. But regardless of whether we go with speedy or allow this discussion to run its course, it's a clear delete either way. Bearcat ( talk) 19:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Al Salehi (Ali being his real name) was nationally recognized on January 16, 2016 by Secretary of State, John Kerry, for helping with the release of the 4+1 Iranian Prisoners. In Kerry's speech, he stated "Dr. Ali Salehi has worked diligently with Secretary Moniz to find creative solutions to difficult technical challenges." [1] Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 05:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
That's clearly referring to Ali Akbar Salehi. Completely different person. Nothing to do with subject here. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 07:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
No, the burden of proof is upon you to show that Kerry was talking about some guy in Orange County who once appeared on Fox News, and not Ali Akbar Salehi the Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization who has worked closely with Kerry's throughout Iran nuclear negotiations. A quote from Kerry that doesn't make the distinction clear is hardly proof. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 15:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but NeemNarduni is correct, both about where the burden of proof lays in a matter such as this (it's on you to prove the affirmative, not on anybody else to prove the obverse) and about which Ali Salehi Kerry was talking about. This source confirms that it's Ali Akbar Salehi and not the library board member. Bearcat ( talk) 20:59, 18 January 2016 (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.