Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Ranger (2nd nomination)

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. Even giving full weight to all commenters, there is no consensus as to whether the subject's underlying notability is sufficient for an article. Default to keep, but the article could be renominated in the future if concerns about excess promotion are not addressed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ranger[edit]

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

Promotional article, for businessman active in several non-notable companies. The awards given do not show notability. (MBE and OBE do not show notability , though the higher ranks do; Queens Award for enterprise is not suficiently discriminate) I'm award of the honorary doctorate from University of West London--but this very low ranking university is essentially a business college & its honorary degrees should not be considered to show notability DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Times of India
Hindustan Times
The Economic Times
NDTV
The Economic Times
The Times of India
Giving is Good For You. pp. pt149– . (subscription required)

Comment: I looked at the above coverage and it's mostly interviews or news releases, including:

"LONDON: Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi and NRI businessman Rami Ranger have joined the UK-based Gandhi Memorial Trust as trustees.

The trust has been set up by NRI economist Lord Meghnad Desai to raise funds for the Gandhi statue to be unveiled at Parliament Square here early next year.

"The Trust is expanding its work and vision. Even after the sculpture is established we will continue to be guided by our valued trustees, especially by Gopalkrishna Gandhi, to spread the message of Mahatma Gandhi in the UK," said Desai in a statement.

It's not clear what makes this subject notable. There are some awards, in 3rd and 5th grade, Member of the Order of the British Empire and Commander of the Order of the British Empire but I assume if this was a notable achievements, this would have been covered in publications other than London Gazette, which appears to be a primary source (a government publication). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that contain quotes are not interviews by default. I can't access the The Times of India article right now, but all of the other articles atop are not interviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's just a retelling of a press release, which makes the coverage more trivial in my view. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should not be deleted as he is a notable figure in the UK and in various other countries. The content is factually correct and open to scrutiny and amendment in case any Wiki users believe it to be incorrect. IT is not in the interests of the wider Wiki community to remove this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if the above vote should be counted as this account only edit the article in question, so appears to be an SPA for this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I've been watching this AfD, and still none of it actually amounts to actual and convincing substance to suggest a convincing and independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is an open source centre for information and the subject is a person who is in the public eye and the UK. There is evidence of people using search engines to find out about him and Wikipedia is a very useful source of information for such users. To remove him would be removing this and would in fact take the subject out of a field of open scrutiny and instead into a private source of information which cannot be good. The style and substance of the article can be amended by those critical of this page and should further sources be required then these can surely be provided or researched. Himanshu Darji ((talk)) 12:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the !vote above comes from the editor who only edited the article in question, and probably should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep** the last comment states that I am the editor and I confirm this. However, you have not asked why I support the view I have taken. I am frequently contacted by newspapers and TV companies for information on the subject page and Wikipedia is an open source which can be questioned and challenged by anyone and information added as appropriate. My vote should not be discounted at all. It should have extra weight as I am directly affected by this and very much aware of the importance of this page remaining on line. Other users should empathize with this situation and the genuine benefit this page provides to all users. Harmeetahuja 13:43 12 August 2016 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the creator of the article admits to needing this page for promotional purposes. I.e. it's helpful to have a wikipedia article in responding to media requests -- ? (If I'm reading this right). The editor also created the Sun Mark article (the subject's company), so this is probably a walled garden situation as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs, I have not admitted any such thing. I have merely stated that there is a need for information on Dr Rami Ranger and that Wikipedia is a credible source for this. It is all the more credible as people such as yourself help to ensure the validity and accuracy of the information. There is no admission or discussion on self-promotion here and I firmly reiterate that the page should remain to support the availability of information on a public figure. Harmeetahuja 15:11 15 august 2016 [UTC] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basing this on the sources found by NorthAmerica (above). These aare RS in major media, some of the jurnalists interviewed the subject, others covered events (the New Year's honro lost and photo of him shakinghnds with Elizabeth II.) These are emphatically NOT press releases. An editor above appears to confuses the fact that these are the sort of things about which a PR professional undoubtedly did send out a press release, with the reality that journalists are innundated with press releases, but when they choose to respond by writing an article about the topic it is called RE secondary coverage - even though it may hve been inspired by a press release. This is NOT the same as a news google hit on a press release.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can access Times of India and the articles are (1) NRI Rami Ranger honoured with honorary doctorate; (2) Indian-origin businessman on Britain's New Year's honours list. These do not appear to be notable awards. Shaking hands with the Queen does not make a person notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2016 (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.