Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Kamani


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Kamani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

limited noteworthiness, Chamanlal Kamani associated chat Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep changed vote due to expansion of article. Weak keep there are obviously more sources than are currently cited in the Wikipedia article. He was not just involved in the Anglo Leasing scandal, Deepak Kamani was the principal agent of the Anglo Leasing and Finance Company, a company that had no physical place of business, no directors and no shareholders according to a government report. If that were all, then he'd be a 1EVENT BLP. But arguably his lawsuit against The Star is a separate, if related, matter. The "society page" in external links suggests broader notability.  Apparently (subject to additional library research) as Chairman of the Zuri Group he is a "hotel tycoon".  --Bejnar (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are now a few more sources in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are now reliable sources for two other "improprieties", aside from Anglo Leasing, a 4-wheel-drive bulk sale in 1994 and a "boilers" bulk sale. --Bejnar (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 22:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was asked to come back and reconsider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mosfetfaser#Deepak_Kamani - There have been edits additions from Bejnar - it still looks like an attack story, it looks more like an attack story after the Bejnar changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Kamani - so after the alterations I can not change my position to require removal from publication - strong delete Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to be balanced, but all of the independent, reliable sources were negative, except the "society" pages. Nonetheless, I included positive information from non-independent sources where they met the criteria at WP:Identifying reliable sources. I thought that the original claim was that he did not meet the WP:GNG standard or was WP:BLP1E, so I tried to be inclusive of events reported in independent, reliable sources. I think that the sources demonstrate that he is notable, contrary to the limited noteworthiness indictment by the nom. Please let me know what can be done to make it not an attack page, while staying within the policy requirements of Verifiability and demonstrating notability --Bejnar (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the story when I suggested deletion was bad and your edits made it more attacking - what can you do to not make it an attack page - move to delete Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So if a living person is a scoundrel, the proper methodology is to wait until they are dead and then emplace a Wikipedia article? Or does this apply to dead people as well, that scoundrels do not deserve entries in the Wikipedia?  Or am I wrong and does Deepak Kamani fail WP:GNG now that you have removed most of the reliable independent sources? An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment this article was sourced, see this version. It is not an attack page because it was sourced to independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, the sole thing referenced to reliable sources is that he was apparently questioned but not charged in a financial scandal. The rest is PR fluff that is not independent of the subject.  Especially since he wasn't charged, I think that WP:ONEEVENT applies and the article should be deleted.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
 * 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.