Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Casha

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Casha[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable " Ramon Casha conducts weddings, baby namings and funerals, as well as other secular ceremonies." The extensive references seem to be his letters to the editor, or postings on his own site--or not even to mention him. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found results such as News and Books but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a notable person's article who represents the irreligious society in Malta including secularists, atheists, agnostics, liberals, etc because yet you cannot find online books or other news from your search is quite shocking. He has been working on equal rights and for secularism for years. It is as recent as 2015, this year, that he managed to satisfy and acquire rights from the Maltese government. Over time more material will be available. You are missing also his activities, human rights campaigns, referendums, Maltese language spellchecker, his work position etc. it is likely that you always want to point out basic things in order to delete. For most Maltese Barack Obama is NOT notable enough but I am sure you should not delete his article. Continentaleurope (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC) User:Continentaleurope is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being an out atheist or secular humanist activist makes him unusual... Esp in Malta. He has many sources as confirmed by article and Google search. Article needs cleanup, not delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unusual is not notable. Even if he were the only one in the country, that still wouldn't be notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and possibly COI; does not meet notability guidelines. The article tries really hard (which is a dead giveaway of promotionalism) but is obviously promotional. Being a humanist/atheist (even a fairly notable one on the island) on an island with a population of 400,000 does not confer encyclopedic notability. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The citations are a mind-numbing over-bloated scatter-shot grab-bag of passing mentions, self-sourced information, speaking engagement mentions (which are tantamount to press releases), and completely irrelevant trivia. DGG said it best in the nomination: When we get to such trivia as "Ramon Casha conducts weddings, baby namings and funerals, as well as other secular ceremonies", and the hobby trivia in the Personal Life section, we know we have a self-promotional dud on our hands. Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not often we get to see somthing that's so obviously promotional or vanity driven. A plethora of refs is not an automatic indication of notability and Internet barrel-scraping for sources is a classic case of trying to render a subject notable that really isn't. Does indeed look strongly like a case of COI by an aide, PR person, or agent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the most ugly examples of footnote stacking I've seen this year. Remember Timbo's Rule 14: Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up any RS to show this person meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 23 September 2015 (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.