Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Dogra
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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems non-notable. Every agent need not have his own article. Majority of article is about CAA, and while Condon is mentioned, there is no need to have any of it here. I believe this agent may be non-notable, so I nominated for AfD. Regards, xC | ☎ 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, there seem to be sources out there describing him as a top agent. There's little biographical information, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"one of the brightest and most successful football agents in the nation" As the brightest and most successful wikipedia editor in the nation, I would like to point out these kind of weasly claims are patently unverifiable. --Infrangible 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the news coverage would seem to satisfy notability --Infrangible 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the interests of a fairer evaluation of the article, I did some cleanup including removing the POV language objected to above and some irrelevant information about CAA. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Still appears to be non-notable. Just being someone's agent does not make one notable. --Kimontalk 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I really don't care that much one way or the other, but he isn't said to be notable simply because of his clients. He is said to be notable as a recognized top agent who has been unusually successful, being brought in as a hired gun to manage the client portfolio of the largest talent agency in the US. Are all agents always inherently and permanently unnotable, or are there agents who can achieve notability in the world of sports agency? This looks to be the latter. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that inherently, agents remain unknown but, I do believe that some can (and have?) achieve notability/notoriety. Also, being a successful businessman is not enough, unless it's qualified and and the person has accomplished something uncommon. For example, my dad is a successful businessman but, he did not found a company that has made an imprint on the country or world like MS or Google. --Kimontalk 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I really don't care that much one way or the other, but he isn't said to be notable simply because of his clients. He is said to be notable as a recognized top agent who has been unusually successful, being brought in as a hired gun to manage the client portfolio of the largest talent agency in the US. Are all agents always inherently and permanently unnotable, or are there agents who can achieve notability in the world of sports agency? This looks to be the latter. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to meet WP:N. I suspect most successful businesspeople probably do meet N, but this guy does appear to be in the upper echelon of sports agents and therefore legitimately notable. This source might be useful for the article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2007 (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.