Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Ranger

Rami Ranger

Rami Ranger (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)

Deprodded without comment. Obvious autobio. Very promotional. Another editor added sources, but they don't seem to be assertations of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Although this article is so dreadfully promotional that it's almost like a personal advertisement. Coverage does exist for this guy. [1], [2], [3], [4], are some examples from the abundant search results in a google news search. The article does need a severe pruning though. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Those are all passing mentions at best, verifying little more than that he exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply - So what are the first two articles about if they are simply passing mentions of Ranger? -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Short made me think passing mentions. I'm clearly out of it right now and need caffeine or something. akjldhflakjflkas Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The article should remain as it is for the good of public knowledge. If anyone disagrees with its content then the facility exists to amend it. To remove it completely would be wrong as it would mean you are removing information which may be of use to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.192.223 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Even the first two articles listed are so short that they don't appear - at least in this editor's eyes - to help establish any sort of significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep* The guy was made "Director of the Year 2012 last night.I was at the event. Its got to be right that the page is kept so people can find out information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If you were there last night then it does make it look as though you have a connection to the subject. Since you're the creator of this article, it does look like a COI problem and rather than supporting notability, seems (at least to me) to hint at possible WP:ADVERT problems as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Surely the principal point is that it is in the public's interest for the information to remain. The right to amend any entry is not being removed so if the information stated is incorrect then it can be amended. The style of writing may not to be one's taste but the information being supplied is factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.192.223 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep -- It is a poor article, and there are other objections, but he looks notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete because the subject has failed the notability test. -- Karl Stephens (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: This article should not be deleted as per his article, he is role model for young generation and in Asian Community. There is a lot of evidence of this on the internet in general too.

---

• Keep - Meets point #1 of WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Source examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)