Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiz King

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. ✗plicit 14:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiz King[edit]

[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)

No indication that he meets WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO. There is a draft at Draft:Ramiz King which makes it even more clear that he is not notable. He might become notable in the future, but it is too soon for an article. bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is notable because he fits the one guideline criteria of starting a new momentum in his country Afghanistan which is evident that it lacks media coverage such as Hollywood or Bollywood hence your decision may seem biased or even discriminatory because of their lack of facilities. His fellow colleagues are deemed notable based on a few times of India articles and have a Wikipedia page. It is evident that if they can pass the notability check it should be same for all related to the category. I say more time is given to this article before deletion and await his confirmed shows release on TOLO which is visible on Google knowledge panel of the channel and IMDb. I suggest KEEP Godlypresence (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO TO add; @Bonadea why is there being two drafts an indication of not notability? When there is two parties making the page? It doesn’t make sense. Godlypresence (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not exactly what I meant. The article we are discussing does not contain a lot of information, and only three sources, none of which is fully independent. There is one draft in addition to the article, and that contains more information than the article. However, it is very clear from that draft that he is not (yet) notable, according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I strongly don’t believe this should be deleted because he is clearly fitting the criteria of being notable enough to start a new momentum in his home country. We should await few more weeks to see if more independent news is written as he has upcoming releases. Please review all the edits and see if it was done fairly. I suggest we keep it as it is an interesting article and just because Afghanistan doesn’t have a major news publication doesn’t mean we shouldn’t supportPositiveilluminati (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Positiveilluminati and Godlypresence: Please do not use more than one account to participate in discussions. You have disclosed at User:Positiveilluminati that both accounts are used by the same person, so it is clear that you are not trying to decieve anyone. However, not everybody who participates in this discussion will have checked your user pages, and when you make separate posts in discussions as you did above, it does look like there are two different people making separate arguments, even though you didn't intend that. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per rationale by bonadea, I too do not see ENT or ANYBIO satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed by the AFC reviewers at Draft:Ramiz King, not notable. Neither this article nor the draft speaks for itself to establish biographical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to satisfy relevant notability criteria. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because the guideline of notability is set out here and he fits this guideline. 1# GUIDELINE : The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 2# GUIDELINE: Entertainers, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions OR

••Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.••

THE DOTTED LAST GUIDELINE IS COMPLETELY RELEVANT TO THIS SUBJECT. I sincerely ask for someone fair and honest to be the judge of this decision and all opinions to be taken into consideration. He has news coming out everyday nearly about him due to his new show release which is a major show like the Kardashains in Afghanistan. Positiveilluminati (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: based on this guideline term: Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Positiveilluminati (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Positiveilluminati, please do not post more than one "keep" comment. You already posted a "keep" (using your other account), above. As for the notability criterion, there are no independent and reliable sources that say that he has "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", and in fact the article makes no claim that he has done so. If he is producing or filming a new show that you believe will make him notable in the future, he (and you) will have to wait until independent and reliable sources write about him in some depth. Clearly, that has not yet happened. --bonadea contributions talk 11:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How long till an decision is made? Why doesn’t the term he had a significant role in notable television show apply to him? Positiveilluminati (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. David notMD (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage provided in the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion as an article. BD2412 T 19:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to make a recommendation because I have taken action as an administrator against an editor participating in this debate. But I do want to comment on the four sources now in the article. The Deccan Chronicle piece is a press release and is of no value in establishing notability. The Patrika News source, according to Google Translate, is a brief promotional piece echoing this person's public relations talking points. The Times of India and Hindustan Times sources are interviews, not independent, and therefore of no value in establishing notability. In my opinion, none of this coverage is truly independent of King. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. We have gone over this many, many times. Merely appearing in or even being a recurring cast member on a Reality TV show is never the basis of notability. This is especially true when there's zero evidence of a fan base or cult following or media presence outside of gossip pages. The cited guideline is for someone who was a prototypical leader in a type of reality TV (examples: Lance Loud, Robin Byrd, Pedro Zamora) Bearian (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2021 (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.