Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Sramek (banker)


 * 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. Nja 247 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jan Sramek (banker)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely non-notable student. He's been mentioned, not as the primary subject, on a single day a few years ago due to the novelty of his A-Level grades. The rest of the article has been supported by his own LinkedIn profile, articles written by him, and his own websites. Doesn't meet any notability criteria. Bastin 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Completely incorrect. Since then he has been featured in the national / international media (including CNN International) many times for various different things not related to the A-Levels episode. I quickly pieced the article together using his profile but will now amend using other sources. Gurtbeiller (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) — Gurtbeiller (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Pffft. That isn't 'featured'.  'Featured' would be with the main subject being related to the individual or event - in those cases, he is mentioned as one of numerous people; at best, he is a minor subject, less notable than the main subject, whilst, at worst, he is an object used to describe or enlighten the main subject.  Not everyone that appears on TV is notable (Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article about me - explain that!), particularly if they appear as objects and not subjects.  That is, G20 meeting = notable; people that have opinions on G-20 ≠ notable.  The fact that you have edited only the article on Jan is either a bizarre editing interest or a demonstration of a conflict of interests.  If you are the subject of an article, or know the subject, could you please disclose this? Bastin 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what do you have to say about http://www.thegatewayonline.com/article.php?id=139 then? An article all about just him, not written by him, written in a national publication that has its own Wikipedia page too. Gurtbeiller (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you read Notability, particularly the part that states that multiple sources are required: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". Not to mention that being profiled in a student newspaper probably doesn't suggest notability, either.
 * On the other criteria (any one of which is grounds for deletion, may I add), it seems to me that he falls under WP:BIO1E. None of the rest is notable in the slightest.
 * Still perplexed as to why you have an interest. Please illuminate.  Bastin 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete

This is not notable..... the articles you have cited are either written by Jan or by his friend D Langer. You or your friends cannot start pages about you...... that does not make a person notable. Ono6767 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — Ono6767 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks the independant sources a notable person would have.  In the end this is a resume. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete an outstanding student but non-notable. If he continues on his present path he may be notable some day and I wish him well. Drawn Some (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As said above, he has no sources, only a resume. His philanthropy and Sport recognitions have no verifiability whatsoever as well. Renaissancee (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009
 * 'Delete clearly a remarkable student but not notable for anything other than his GCSE results at this stage. - (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.