Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekram Alam

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. after discounting the hordes of SPAs, there is a clear consensus that notability has not been established. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ekram Alam[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Possible hoax or attack page. The only wp:rs is a Guardian article with a passing mention. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-24t00:38z 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteNotability.-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found significant coverage for this person online and have researched this individual and attended this individuals performances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.123.131 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 94.173.123.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~: The page is not a hoax page nor an attack page. I.P addresses of attacks have been traced and reported to legal authorities and have been found to come from the same person/small group of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.123.131 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please only !vote once. I have struck your duplicate !vote. Edward321 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I contributed to the creation of this page. It is completely legitimate and this person is well known as a performer through many media outlets and on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Useshi (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Useshi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This page does not contain any material that makes me feel that it is an attack page. I have found many internet articles, newspaper publications, etc involving this individual and have attended some of his shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.240.3 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 144.82.240.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Legitimate page. Has been attacked in past but any attacks have been successfully reverted n 24 hours. All contents are accurate. Coverage on this individual can be found elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.65.202 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 77.101.65.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, not notable, despite a flurry of keep votes from IPs. Hairhorn (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...Anyone else smell socks? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've found notable sources with this individual in it and watched performances of this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.142.6 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC) — 128.40.142.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I do not feel that there are enough reliable sources cited, meaning that this article is in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. It ought to be deleted so that Wikipedia doesn't lose it's status as a valuable source of information, because this article is little more than poppycock. I cannot find any genuine notable sources, because there simply aren't any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.19.137 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC) — 217.42.19.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails the notability criteria. Candidate for speedy delete and the personal trivia should be deleted if there is any suspicion of it being inappropriate (as per WP:BLP). Ash (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2010 (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.