Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Singh

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Singh[edit]

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

Unsourced peacockery of the first order. Famousdog (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Peacockery indeed! Ridiculous subject. Fails WP:GNG MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia that this article has been here for four months. It breaks every rule in the book, from notability to neutrality to verifiability. Thanks for spotting it, Famousdog. There is absolutely no evidence that this person has any notability whatsoever. The only information found at Google News is about a murder victim of the same name, and the only thing found at Google is social media sites. Can we get a few more !votes and snow it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, because no indication of important at all. Iglooflame (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If The Guardian has indeed recommended her, that could be a claim to significance. Just in case snow doesn't arrive, I've added a citation needed to that statement, as I feel that even in one of its occasional loony moments this is unlikely. Possibly someone in a Guardian blog may have mentioned her. I can't find anything on Google, except gogetpapers which said "in 2004". (An interesting site. It had a link for "What was last edited by Peridon at 10.08 (UTC)", but couldn't answer the question.) Like Melanie, I wonder how this passed our ever vigilant patrollers. (Having said which, there was an article that surfaced recently that survived for four years before it was noticed that the sportsman in question didn't exist...) Spammy, promo, peacock, unreferenced. Peridon (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline speedy, which I just declined but no credible evidence of notability. Ben Mac Dui 14:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really see no evidence of notability - and I think the Guardian claim is the only thing that might stand between it and speedy A7. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed this sentence: "She has been published in many newspapers and international magazines and many newspapers have written of her abilities as a healer." If that were true you would think one of us would have come up with something. I no longer Assume Good Faith about this article; I think it is a pack of lies. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2012 (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.