Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Singh

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 February 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Singh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Non-notable per WP:BIO. Article falls under WP:NOTADVERTISING. Additional details soon. Banchasana (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like you have something personal against this guy, but either way, the topic is now up for discussion. Please make sure that your comments remain neutral. I can see from the notice on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard that you say this article was posted with "slight" revisions. That is a gross understatement. I was actually working on improving the article but it was deleted before I could finish and post the edits. I would request that an administrator restore the deleted version so that people can see that it is more than a "slight" revision. The previous article reaked of promotion. It was basically an article about the company Election Mall, using the media surrounding Singh as a cover. It was horribly written and lacked sourcing. The current article is a "substantial" improvement and those discussing it here can see the major changes if the previous one is restored somewhere to look at. --Plainscallops (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has sufficient sources of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. Could be toned down a bit, but doesn't seem especially over-promotional. Yworo (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 15. Snotbot t • c » 07:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't see anything promotional here. Rather dry, but otherwise okay.--Auric talk 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not support the material; the exaggeration implied by them makes this article too promotional to be kept. "Outstanding 50 Asian Americans in Business" is not a notable award. Being recognized as a "rising star" = "not yet notable. I see no evidence that he is a pioneer in the use of electronic campaigning,besides his own assertions. The example that he was widely quoted by the media shows him as one of several figures quoted, not as the main topic or even most prominent person cited. Similarly for the cover story in USA weekend--it may be a cover story, but it wasn't about him. He has not been a part time professor, a title that does not exist, he has been an adjunct instructor at 2 community colleges. The claims rely mostly on his own campaign statements. I suppose he does technically meet 2RS=N, but the article needs to be started over, with only those facts which have been reliably reported by sources not merely copying his PR. merely that he got some press talking about it. By our usual rules for failed legislative candidates, he's not notable. Sustaining this article means changing from reliable sources show notability, to any sort of sources however promotional show notability. DGG ( talk ) 10:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of the sources simply do not support the claims. "Singh is attributed as being the first person to bring online politics into the cloud." The CSPAN video does not make any reference to this statement. "Ravi Singh was the first Indian-American student body president at a major American University." This statement is not true -- Naveen Jindal was a student body president of UT Dallas in 1992. "During his time as student body president, he was selected to speak at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago" -- nothing in the article points to "selected". The Asianweek article is essentially a PR release published before his legislative race. Banchasana (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You nominated the article for deletion. That was your !vote. You don't get a second one, though of course you may make additional comments. The usual way to do that is to include Comment at the beginning of the line, not an apparent additional !vote. Yworo (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the information. Added the appropriate labels. Banchasana (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the creator of this article, I will obviously vote to keep it. However, I will remain neutral with my rationale using Wikiepdia rules to support my keep. For general notability guidelines, the sources must be significant coverage that is indpenedent from the subject. While it has been said that some of the sources are not ABOUT him (such as the cover article for USA Weekend). No, the article was not specifically about him, the article was about elections and it featured him as part of the article. This is not a slight mention but an entire section of the article featuring him and his company. Not sure how much more notable to get unless they title the article "Forget about everyone else, this one is about Ravi Singh." There are other significant references including Outlook Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, the Daily Herald, Asian American Busienss, etc. He was even in the Australian and Politico. These are notable publications and being in them shows significant coverage. While some have pointed out that he is NOT the pioneer of the campaigns on the cloud, there is failure to point out that he WAS the first person to graduate with a turban and it was because of him that the legislation allowing such was enacted. He is also the first to run for such office in Illinois (although he would fail notability as a failed politician, he would be notable for the accomplishments during the campaign). Not sure what else to say other than I feel that based on needed significant and indepednet coverage, the references show it and therefore I believe keeping the article is appropriate. Also, if you look at the original article that was previously deleted, you will see that it was a blatant promotion. The current article is substantially different. There is one section dedicated to his company, but it is fact based and non-promotional. --Plainscallops (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial real accomplishments, extensive efforts at publicity. We aren't a vehicle for that, or at least we should not be. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (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.